Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:15, 5 September 2009

< 4 September	6 September >

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 keep. Issues with verifiability, neutrality, tone and other inappropriate content are resolvable problems that have no bearing on a topic's suitability for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is consensus here that this topic has reached that. Skomorokh 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Infrastructure

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

This neologism is not notable, there are serious verifiability issues, little in the way of neutral point of view and it has read like an advert ever since it was created *from an IBM patent and trademark* (per edit logs). With sections like "Need for a holistic approach" and "Benefits of having a dynamic infrastructure" and no discussion whatsoever (beyond a pronouncement from User:Kbrhouse - a SPA created for the purpose of editing this article) it is clear that Wikipedia is being abused as a soapbox. Most problematic though is this edit which removed my dated prod *and* forward-dated two article issues templates (confusing & cleanup) while adding a raft of problematic text. CloudComputing (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that other companies may have been counting on overturning the IBM trademark since googling "Dynamic Infrastructure" -IBM returns 68,500 hits. I assume that terminating the cancelation proceeding for the trademark on 24 August 2009 means that the term is now completely in the hands of IBM. However, the term may still be notable in its own right and deserves some discussion. See WP:PRODUCT. It seems that many vendors are now using the term "Infrastructure 2.0". Perhaps that's a better name for a cleaned up version of the article that might have a section specifically on Dynamic Infrastructure. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, you are throwing a lot of stones at User:Kbrhouse when you seem to have your own SPA issues. Since IBM is pushing Dynamic Infrastructure as part of their Cloud Computing solution, there's a chance that you work for a direct competitor of IBM in this field. If so, it would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose when proposing to delete an article related to IBM. Disclaimer: I have never worked for IBM or any Cloud Computing vendor. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I appreciate your right to an opinion you are wrong with your accusations and perhaps should try assuming good faith. Discussing an IBM trademark in a generic context makes the article even more problematic and if it is to remain then it should at least explain the trademark situation. CloudComputing (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the trademark issue. We should first decide if we want to keep the article under this name, merge it into another IBM product article, or rework it into an article on Infrastructure 2.0. I need to look into it a bit deeper before making a recommendation. UncleDouggie (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked into it. I think the current article should be moved to Infrastructure 2.0 with a redirect from Next generation data center to it. Both names are already referenced in the first sentence of the article. There are currently no redlinks to either topic. The new Dynamic Infrastructure should redirect to a new section of the moved article that presents the history of the terms, including IBM's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure. I do note that Google shows close to 20M hits for Next generation data center and just over 100K for Infrastructure 2.0. However, it seems to me that any subject containing the words "Next generation" is doomed to have a very short shelf-life in the IT world. With IBM enforcing it's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure, it's more likely that others will jump on the Infrastructure 2.0 band wagon. I propose that we close this AfD, open a move proposal to Infrastructure 2.0, and then cleanup the article to meet WP standards. Worst-case, the text that you object to could be removed and the article returned much to it's original more NPOV state. We would then still have at least a stub that others can expand on for this important topic as well as an edit history. Given the importance of Infrastructure 2.0/Next generation data center to Cloud Computing, I'm interested to hear your take on this. Can you see two such articles compliment each other, or do you prefer to delete this article outright and bury Infrastructure 2.0 in Cloud Computing somewhere? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit sharp of IBM! I agree that redirects to Infrastructure 2.0 might be best if they have any success enforcing the patent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — there seem to be plenty of references and external links, not just IBM, establishing notability. The tone of the article should be improved, but that does not mean it should be deleted. I have improved the references and done a little bit if tidying. More is needed! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Its the way all the big boys are heading, Im not aware of any serious enterprise class org that isnt at least investigating these models. Granted its not the most notable topic but then recent technologies that arent user facing rarely are, there's enough coverage in the IT press to pass our standards. Fairly inexperienced staff still sometimes move to a position when they'll be working with servers, so theres likely a great many readers that might find the article useful. Im only voting a weak keep as while its well above the typical standard we see from a new user, it will admittedly be challenging to clarify the articles scope and would take a long time to bring up to the quality of say the excellent cloud computing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Von Dusen

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

Person with no evidence of notability. Google finds little about him outside MySpace. Nice doggy (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert notability; google (web, book, scholar, and news) searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he never really broke into the "major leagues" and a myspace page is not really good supporting documentation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A journeyman indy wrestler with no claim to notability. Plenty of wrestlers have been in jail and been fired from companies for having a big mouth. Get Dumb 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

I'm taking the unusual action of closing this AfD early, and I feel it's only fair to those who have contributed that I explain my reasoning for doing so. I see a very solid consensus on this page for the retention of the pages backed up by very solid arguments, and I can envisage absolutely no way that the consensus is going to change so severely to result in the pages being deleted in the near future, given the very strong consensus to keep these articles that has developed now there are one of two ways things could go, if this AfD was allowed to run the full term, consensus would remain unchanged from the very strong keep we have at the moment, or some further good quality delete comments would come in, and at best, there would be a no consensus closure, either way, there is no way that this AfD is ever going to result in the deletion of the articles listed below.

That alone would not normally be enough for an early closure, but given the growing bad blood between the nominator and participants, and the potential this AfD has to become a massive time sink, generating more heat than light, I think it's in the best interests for all involved to close this AfD now, before people become upset and more accusations start flying.

I trust this explanation is sufficient, if not, please don't hesitate to contact me. Nick (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Canes services

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

These pages are about rest areas on a highway system in the United Kingdom, they amount to nothing more than stubs of nearly useless information. There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other. There already exists a general article about these service centers (Motorway service area) and a listing of them all (List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom), these two pages contain virtually all the relevent information each individual page contains. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository and virtually all of this information comes from [1] or the individual commerical companies websites that run these facilities. Examples of other rest areas pages that do not create pages for each idividual site is Illinois Tollway oasis and the general Rest area page. These pages do not meet notability requirements in my opinion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following articles as well, under the same rationale:

Note: I am aware this is a significant request that encompass many pages and possibly some templates that need deleted/edited as well. But I do feel these pages strongly do not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted, the existing general pages/list linked above is more than sufficient with some additional expanding/editing to cover all the information that ALL these pages contain in an easier to read and accessible form. When you break information like this out into 50 pages that contain very little information that all could be quickly and concisely added to a page like List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom it makes the information less useful and harder to obtain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there was a past AfD in 2006 for these pages, thus the 2nd nomination in the title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1

Comment, I was just at the Thomas Edison service area on the New Jersey Turnpike, and I have to say that the thought occurred to me that somebody would make a Wikipedia article on it, and that I should make sure it redirected to the main article or a list. These highway oases need to be treated in context, since they cannot even be accessed without being on the hghway/tollway involved. Abductive (reasoning) 06:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true of UK Motorway services. They can all be accessed from local non-motorway roads. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list per motorway (e.g. Motorway service areas on the M5) but those with significant history and/or cultural impact (e.g. Watford Gap services) should definitely have a stand-alone article (and a summary on the per-Motorway page with a {{Main article}} link). Basically I think that if the encyclopaedic information can be summed up in one paragraph or less the article should be merged, if it can't then a standalone article is appropriate (I don't consider a list of food/retail outlets to be encyclopaedic in this context). I've only looked at a couple of the articles so far, but Sedgemoor services and Taunton Dene services should be merged, Watford Gap services should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lancaster (Forton) and Watford Gap - Lancaster is of particular interest given the unusual 'control tower' visible from the carriageway (which I believe is a listed building), and Watford Gap was the first services to open in the UK. I agree most of the others are unimportant stubs. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have failed to locate the individual deletion debates for each article, and as the only notification was through use of edit summaries for general communication instead of talk pages, I contend that this debate may be irrelevant, see: User_talk:Raeky#AfD_Motorway__service_stations, and that any consensus reached by it may possibly not be representative of any or all of the articles discussed here.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for warning me on my talk page, but I have followed proper procedure for this. These pages have been discussed to be deleted before here which is pretty clearly linked above. Thanks for your concern that I did something wrong but I haven't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no prior deletions recorded at that URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most per Thryduulf. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most to a list of per-motorway services, with possibility to split out particularly notable ones if there is more content than a couple of paragraphs.

Strong keep all. Motorway service stations in the UK don't equate to rest stops in the US. British service stations are both a rarity (AFAIK this AFD lists every service station in the entire country), and major economic centres in their own right, and in the British context, where construction alongside the motorway network is incredibly tightly controlled (every one of these required a specific Act of Parliament to build), there's no such thing as an "insignificant service station". There are fewer motorway service stations in Britain than there are train stations on London's Northern line alone, and we – rightly – cover every railway station; the smallest of these service stations serves more users than all but the busiest railway stations, and every service station is a major institution (and often the largest employer) in their community. That some of the articles are unsourced and stubby is a red herring; every single one of these will have been the subject of lengthy proposals, discussions, planning applications, legal disputes over siting, architectural competitions, formal (often Royal) openings etc – all of which will have been the subject of significant press coverage at every stage. The nominator has included the {{findsources}} for Norton Canes as part of this nomination, but I see no evidence that they've actually checked them; Norton Canes, for instance, is uniquely the only British service station to be built on a toll road, the site of the head offices of RoadChef, the site of a museum of neolithic artifacts found during the construction of the motorway, the venue for a unique (and failed) experiment in providing fine dining in the motorway context... – iridescent 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rarity or not, they're not notable. Also, if you didn't know, true service stations accessible only from the highway, is RARE in the united states (Because MOST are illegal). But you don't see individual pages for each one. The two existing pages, the main page and listing page is ENOUGH, but individual pages for EVERY SINGLE service center is overkill for this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST Jeni ^(talk) 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTREPOSITORY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:IDIOCRACY --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All the nominator has made an invalid comparison between US rest areas and UK service stations, they are completely different. We don't have articles on rest areas in the UK, such as Todhills rest area on the M6. Not only that but he has blatently obviously failed to look at individual articles such as Strensham services and Watford Gap services both of which have been expanded beyond stub status (Strensham is a Good Article). Stubs aren't bad, they just haven't been expanded yet. As such this is an invalid nomination as it fails WP:BEFORE. Jeni ^(talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, they are exactly like US highway oases, which are not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE isn't a valid excuse to keep, the discussion was in 2006. My argument is multi-fold, that they themselves individually are not notable, that there exists sufficient pages already that overview them 1 2 and that having MANY idividual pages for this makes the information harder to access. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But its a valid excuse to render this nomination invalid and disruptive, as you have not followed nomination guidelines, at all! Jeni ^(talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not approprate to list each page as an AfD, see Wikipedia:BEFORE#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, so how have I not followed guidelines? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please refer to the comment by the closing admin at the last AfD, which I have already quoted, below. And read WP:BEFORE Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have blatantly failed to check for sources on each article to try to establish notability yourself, I suspect you didn't look at many of them other than to add an AfD tag. You didn't notify the creators of the articles about this discussion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent; whose key points were made the last time these were bulk-nominated for deletion by someone confusing these major UK features with minor US rest-rooms. Note that, when the last bulk-AfD ended, the closing admin said "If anybody has a beef with particular stations, I suggest single noms to sort those out.". If only we could salt a keep. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP policies and procedures in 2006 is not the same as today, plus these pages have had YEARS to adapt and become more than stubs, plus now there exists well created pages like Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to handle this information. The BULK of these pages (if not all) can be easily merged into those two pages. It makes the information easier to obtain for the reader and removes a ton of stubs in one step. Unless an individual service center can beyond any doubt meet notability requirements beyond that it just exists then it shouldn't have it's own page. We don't create pages for every shopping mall or other large-employment commercial establishments that are "rare" for an area. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policies may have changed (though I doubt those relevant here have changed significantly), but the prior debates contain explanations of notability which you have clearly either overlooked or ignored; and there is no time-limit on the life of a stub. Your shopping mall argument is a red herring, and of no significance. You have nominated many articles with clearly- and already- established notability, some of which you have subsequently dismissed "a mention in a song by some guy"). The Motorway service area article was created in June 2005, so is no more relevant now than in prior debates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Iridescent and Jeni. As has been said there has been an incorrect comparions to US rest areas and UK service stations. UK service stations are major places. They are constantly refered to a major landmarks on the Travelnews etc. Who hasn't heard about Clacket Lane services for instance? The fact the M25 only has three service areas shows how rare there are. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Since the nominator tagged all these articles for deletion and made some sweeping statements about notability, I feel comfortable making equally generalised statements in response. Motorway service stations are not that common, so the argument that Wikipedia might run out of paper if we include them seems flawed. Here's a list of them. It may seem a lot, but when you realise that there isare only ~~one~~ on the 60-mile long M3 motorway it becomes apparent that they are important as "fast roads with few junctions needed 24-hour services at regular intervals". They are landmarks in their own right, for example this article uses the phrase "on the M5 near Sedgemoor services" because service stations are well-know. In the UK, motorway services are privatised, allowing businesses to invest in the site. I can't find any stats on visitor numbers, but they're enough to sustain several franchises (take a look at this link which I picked at random). There's plenty of information that could be included in articles about motorway services if you just think about it that a list would be poorly suited to handle. Opening date, construction, impact on the local economy, opinions of the locals etc. I don't think the sources have even been examined add this one which took me 30 seconds to find to the ones Iridescent provided.
Also, nominating a couple of Good Articles was a silly idea as they have clearly established notability, which sort of undermines the general statements in the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific article do you think even REMOTELY qualifies for a Good Articles?! I can nominate ANYTHING for ANYTHING, doesn't make it a GA or Notable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand the term "Good Article". Go and read WP:GA?, then you might understand why nominating a GA for not being notable is ludicrous. Anything can be nominated for anything, but that doesn't guarantee it will succeed, as will be demonstrated when the GAs you've nominated are kept for being notable. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked, not a single page listed that I can see is listed as a Good Article. Again which one that I nominated is a Good Article? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By making general statements about the notability of motorway services, you are implicitly including all of them, despite not having listed the likes of Strensham services. Articles such as that demonstrate what can be found about motorway services. Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, aruguably Watford Gap could be the next GA, with some in line sourcing and expansion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say some of these (very few I suspect) MIGHT meet notability requirements, and sure I didn't nominate EVERY single one, although more probably should be added to this list. Just because one or two are notable does NOT mean all 50+ of them need individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The M3? Fleet and Winchester!! Yes there's two on the M3. But as you said there are still very few. I used the example there's only three on the M25. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, the point still stands, although I must learn to count :-) Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It took me about 10 minutes to find and add some information from a reliable source, and there is plenty more out there. These articles have great possibilities, and their existence serves to encourage development of wikipedia. Strensham and others show what can be done. Independent notability is established; I see no reason to merge, let alone delete. I hope that they can all develop in the future. Chzz ► 13:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment If we had articles on rest areas, we'd have articles such as Bangor rest area (A5), Todhills rest area (M6), Oldbury rest area (M5/A419), Tiverton rest area (M5), Markfield rest area (M1). But we don't, and thank god we don't, there would be hundreds! The nominator has a massive misunderstanding about the difference between service areas and rest areas, and on this basis I suggest he withdraws the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and is not isn't grounds that these should be kept. You admit yourself that "thank god" we don't have a page for every single one. What makes a "service area" notable in the UK and not anywhere else in the world? Should we add thousands of service area pages for every one in the world? They're not notable because they are rare in the UK. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent's comments, which I strongly agree with. Also, batch nominations should rarely be used unless the articles are nearly identical, as it's impossible to thoroughly review 50 or so pages in one sitting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats why AfD's are many days before they close, gives you plenty of time. Plus MOST of these pages are one or two lines with an infobox, easy to read. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (all) - as per Nev1's comments, particularly concerning the Good Articles, and especially as as over half the nominated articles have already survived a AfD with 'keep'. Any suggestions in the comments above that this AfD may have been instigated with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, rules, or AfD procedure, also receive my support, and as per my earlier comment, I suggest this AfD should be closed as invalid. --Kudpung (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all) on the basis of WP is NOT a travel guide. However, I agree that these discussions may need to be handled individually. In particular, I am not finding that these articles meet the notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that must be discussed indivually.
For instance, the article on Norton Canes services uses a reference to a BBC article. BBC is definitely a reliable and independent source. The article is about the subject (the service area), although I suspect the article is much more than a regurgitation of a company press release. There is another source given for this service area that says how many jobs are created by its existence--THIS is the type of encyclopedic data that is needed (in my mind) to make this article more than a "travel guide" entry. (However, these do not add up to significant coverage to me.) But these types of merits must be discussed for each individual article.
Many of the articles in the list have no references at all, merely external links to travel guides that list and rate services. These should be deleted as there is no encyclopedic merit to these articles.
I suggest merging into the article about the road or moving the articles to WikiTravel.- ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that information on "how many jobs are created by its existence" for each of the services is unavailable, or simply that because it's not in the article that it should be deleted? Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote is suggesting that Watford Gap services and Strensham services should also be deleted? Thats what is generally accepted when you say delete all. Obviously you haven't taken the time to look at the articles up for nomination, a big mistake at AfD, and is as disruptive as the nomination. Jeni ^(talk) 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point, you're quibbling over terminology? You've not addressed what Jeni said. Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have above — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep all per Iridescent/Jeni's arguments. :-) Majorly talk 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Iridescent and Jeni expressed it very well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per keep arguments above, and notably because single AfD nominations of groups of articles of massively variable quality and notability is wholly unacceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all the same, one has a mention in a song by some guy and the other has some interesting landmark near it. Hardly sets them worlds apart from the others. It's perfectly acceptable to group AfD's of EXTREMELY similar pages into one single discussion about them. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Roy Harper's song is wholly about Watford Gap service station. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - Comparing Motorway services in the UK to rest stops in the US is like comparing a B&B to the Savoy Hotel. These are all large multi million pound a year operations, very rare, and over an entire motorway you may only get two services each 80 to 100 miles apart. They are a huge part of British culture and even have had their own TV series. Each service area employs hundreds of people, full commercial services, full fuel servicing and some even have mechanical services and provide parking for thousands of vehicles. Most act as an enroute base of operations for breakdown services. In fact if Iridesent's comment that they all required acts of parliament to individually create (and that is referencable) then notability is especially established there and then. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And these are different from the service centers across the world how? And it establishes notablity beyond these pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom to justify their own individual page? I don't think so. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The differences have already been explained, both by Iridescent, above, and in prior AfD debates, which you are supposed to have read. What you think, in ignorance of these facts, is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have read them all, but I didn't see anything valid, basically it boils down too "they're rare in the UK thus justifying individual pages," or that proper procedure wasn't followed. I still don't see anything that establishes the need for individual pages that can't be covered by Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT. Passing references to it in news as location doesn't really count. It's common practice that specific roadmarks/locations are used as a indicator of location on highways that doesn't make that location notable in wikipedia standards. Could it be mentioned and should it on the main roadway's article, sure. But to create individual pages for every roadmark on a roadway isn't. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has been pointed out to you many times now that these are not mere "roadmarks", they are significant commercial centres and significant local employers. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So do Shopping malls but do we create a page for every single one in the world? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        depends on how significant they are to their local communities. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) Actually we seem to for most Jeni ^(talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the word "most" is pretty bold, I challenge you to show that MOST of the worlds shopping malls have pages here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please point to the apparently recently-introduced Wikipeida policy requiring each article to be the subject of "significant news coverage". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doubt it's new, but here you go for the guideline at WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's no, then; so your assertion that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." was bogus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite sure you don't understand wikipedia policy in terms of notability, but thanks for your comments. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that and your other recent comments, you're sailing very close to the wind with WP:AGF and [{WP:NPA]]. And it wasn't me who said that "For a commercial center like this to be qualified for it's own wikipedia page there needs to be significant news coverage OF IT." Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No but your constantly baiting and attempting to derail the topic and ignoring presented counter claims against your statements. WP Notability policy clearly states it needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to justify its OWN page. There is no evidence the vast majority of these service centers meet that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is disputing WP:N and the only person who has misrepresented it is you. Pointing out such misrepresentation is not "baiting" and is not "attempting to derail the topic" and suggesting otherwise is the very behaviour about which I have just cautioned you. You have included in this AfD articles with clearly cited notability. Why is that? I have ignored none of the points you have put to me; but if you think otherwise, please feel free to point them out and I shall adress them now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many also have large motels on site as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

Comment We need to keep in mind Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing here, and a need to avoid things like particularlly offensive comments like that one by Jeni on her talk page directed at me. Although I didn't intentionally go out and notify every editor of the pages (which is not required to do), and I do welcome open discussion on the topic and think the main editors should be notified. And Jeni ~~didn't~~ did correctly notify all the previous participants regardless of their opinion to participate in this article. But if your opinion of me is a typical American thus unqualified to decide on notability of things in the UK, then this argument is moot in your opinion. Only UK editors apparently are capable of launching AfD discussions on the merits of UK locations?~! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me that Jeni made a perfectly accurate observation, as you are repeatedly making more and more evident. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I let the participants in the previous AfD know about this debate, regardless of vote or activity (unless there was a note on their talk page to not leave a message). Nothing wrong with that at all, it falls under letting interested parties know about a discussion, which is perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS, I guess that's another page you haven't read. Jeni ^(talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it was inappropriate to notify them, I said it probably should of been done and you was correct to do so, thank you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops, on rereading what I posted, I made a typo. I typically do that when typing fast, sorry. I ment that you DID properly notify them. Corrected my mistake. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way were the messages "mass posting, biased, partisan, secret"? And if you find it offensive that someone thinks you know nothing about motorway services... so what? I know nothing about silent movies and if someone said that about me I couldn't care less. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that it had occurred, I just said that it appears that it could. From the previous AfD it appears to be mostly hamstrung by "as per" votes and very little substance. This isn't a vote. Valid arguments must be presented on both sides. I'd rather this not2 be a "omg an american is deleting UK pages, ATTACK" and every editor in the UK Roads Project comes here with "as per" votes. I believe my arguments on that they individually are not notable enough for their own pages is sound. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment - All as per means is that the arguments have already been made and they don't see the need to reiterate the exact same thing again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:LEADER — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, I haven't notified the UK Roads wikiproject, as that's as good as inactive, so I notified the next appropriate wikiproject, being WP:UKGEO. And if you didn't try to apply the American logic on rest areas, a completely separate thing, then this AfD may have more of a valid reasoning! I have no issue with Americans making nominations/commments, but I do have a problem with them making uninformed comments without doing any appropriate research into the subject, and trying to approach the issue as if it was a US rest area. Jeni ^(talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because I linked Illinois Tollway oasis as an example I applied the "american argument"? Plus I find it hard to believe you bothered to look on my user page to discover my nationality because it actually matters for this discussion? How does where I am located on the earth reflect on my credibility as a wikipedia editor?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I deduced that from your spelling and the phrases you use. I'm not saying it is reflecting your credibility. The credibility is affected because you have failed to adequately research the subject before making the nomination, that would apply to anyone of any nationality. Jeni ^(talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. You say on your own userpage that you're American; you clearly have no knowledge of the subject, since you're continually equating the "gas-station and a McDonalds" US-style rest areas with the de facto small towns and hubs of the local community that constitute British service areas, despite repeatedly having the difference pointed out to you. (If you're still doubting the whole "each one required its own Parliamentary approval" thing, here's the authorisation for Norton Canes.) Seriously, quit flogging the dead horse; your constant repetition of the mantra that a US truckstop is equivalent to a European MSA because they have similar sounding names is like comparing my house to Joseph Priestley House because they're both houses built in the 1790s. – iride scent 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did NOT state that because we don't have these in the United States that they must be deleted. Your either reading something completely different than I am or something worse. I've clearly kept stating this on a global reference. Because they're big shopping areas does not make them notable in their own right. There needs to be reliable sources to back up their notability for them to sustain their own individual pages. I don't understand your "since you're continually equating the 'gas-station and a McDonalds' US-style rest areas" where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways. The page Rest area is all-encompassing from small bathroom break areas to full blown "de facto small towns" since it links directly to the UK service areas pages. Again what does me being an American have to do with this discussion?! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Where have I compared them to standard REST AREAS on US Highways"? That would be in the first line of this nomination ("There are millions of rest areas in the world's highway systems and these are no more notable then any other"). As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you have clearly not carried out the most basic WP:BEFORE work here, since the sources clearly exist. Seriously, stop it; you're heading rapidly towards the line that separates "good faith misunderstanding" from "disruptive refusal to admit you made a mistake". – iride scent 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area is an proper term for these, see Rest area. Because I don't see your side of the argument and disagree with you I'm approaching bad-faith disruptive behavior?! Good thing you're not an admin. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Iridescent, sources have been provided. Care to make personal comments about me too? Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, Rest area is not the proper term, see Motorway service area. Rest area is the proper term for rest areas (obviously), such as Todhills rest area etc. Once again you are trying to apply American logic! Jeni ^(talk) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See: Rest_area#United_Kingdom Although your country generally draws a distinction between the two phrases, wikipedia lumps them together globally as rest areas. If you actually attempted to read the lead paragraph on Rest area it is a valid term to describe these. Plus your local distinction isn't really relevant if I used the term "Rest area" to describe these or not, this is about the notability of them to justify individual pages for each one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest area#United Kingdom. You might want to actually read the articles you're citing. – iride scent 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean like this, "Other names include rest and service area (RSA), service station, resto, service plaza, and service center, service centre, and motorway services (or just "services" in the UK)." in the lead paragraph? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm thinking probably "The term "rest area" is not generally used in the United Kingdom" is worth reading. So wikipedia lumps them together. So what. Wikipedia's not a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (don't know why you changed the date of my comment to the 25th?!), but it's use is irrelevant even here. The AfD isn't about if they're classified as "rest area" on WP or elsewhere or how I used the term it's about their notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Once again, motorway service stations on British motorways are not just rest areas. They are major features of the road system and their establishment and operation is covered by Act of Parliament. These places are not just truck stops! As the Illinois Tollway oasis article states, these kinds of developments are rare in the United States (and just because nobody has created articles on individual oases doesn't mean they shouldn't, so this is in no way a precedent). In a fair amount of travel in Europe, I have found only one or two service areas that even come close to the size and facilities of a British motorway service station. And no policy says that articles should be deleted just because they are currently stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Show us some reliable sources on them. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On what? British motorway service stations? Look at the articles. Stubs? Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're incorrect, proof of existence is NOT all that is needed for a page on wikipedia. You exist (I assume your not a computer program but a real person), but do you AS A PERSON need a wikipedia page and meet notability requirements? No. Existence isn't enough to proof notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was and I've never argued that it was. I was merely attempting to answer Abductive's rather ambiguous post about sources. If an article had multiple sources it wouldn't be a stub! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean to offend I was simply commenting on your above statement "Proof of existence is all that's needed for a stub. Look at a map!" If what you said there wasn't what you meant then I'm glad we cleared that up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets not argue over a few service stations now, personally, I would Keep the articles per past points, but now i'm expecting some lecture about policies from one of those who wants them deleted.Cybie 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep all and please can we have it made official policy that UK motorway service areas are notable. Blaisdon Halt probably handled fewer travellers in a month than a service station handles in a day. Why does the notability of Blaisdon Halt go unquestioned while we have to fight repeatedly re service stations? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Likewise I'd consider A LOT of these railway station pages to not meet the same notability requirements to justify their own page. But we'll tackle those another day, shall we? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that upon the outcome of this AfD, we can get it added to the common outcomes page. Jeni ^(talk) 17:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention Blaisdon Halt is a pile of rubble now, I had to laugh at the link to the "Picture of the station today".Cyberdemon007 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thomas Edison Service Area, is that the pissanty little rest stop about 15-20 miles south of Newark International? If so I was there about three weeks ago (our driver had to call in for gas on the way to the airport), and I remember thinking it seemed small. Much smaller than any of the MSAs in the UK by a large margin. If it is the same place I'm remembering. Had enough space to park about 50 trucks, and maybe 80-100 cars. I think it had a petrol station, Sun Oil or some such and a Burger King. Canterbury Tail talk 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit conflict - Sorry, mis-remembering, it was on the way from the airport the day before. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is relevant to this discussion how? Plus it definitely sounds like you're being very negative here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's relevant if that is the basis that if you are using to compare with the UK MSAs then it's the wrong basis for comparison. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't make any such comparison, and definitely not with this particular place. I'm stating that the vast bulk of these service centers do not meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a rest stop, it is an oasis. Rest stops have toilets and vending machines. If something is important/notable it will have secondary sources testifying to that. Please provide some. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess all we need to show notability of these once and for all is the Acts of Parliment. That would establish notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was an "Act of Parliament" to create it doesn't mean it meets wp:notability requirements. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you can get anymore reliable significant coverage than an Act of Parliment specifically for the topic, for any article. The government of a country passing an Act specifically to create something is most definitely notable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should expand, an Act of Parliament is notable for them as a whole, but NOT for each one individually to justify them having individual pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the significance here. An Act of Parliament didn't establish MSAs in general, a completely separate and individual Act of Parliament is made to establish each individual one. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was done as one act or individual acts is immaterial to the notability of the individual sites. It can be used to establish notability for them as a whole, needining an act to be made, but not for each one individually. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another reason why these articles should be kept is that there is a potential for them to expand to cover thousands of years of history. Todays major trunk routes in England still follow the routes build by the Romans, meaning that the area of the services has been in use for at least 2000 years and in some cases going back to neolithic. Before construction they would have had a full archaelogical study and excavation. For Wikipedia, that means there will be at least an archaelogical report to quote from. The petrol station itself may not be notable, but the land it was build on is notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCRYSTAL — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant, however I'm not sure if there'll be much in the way of archaeological reports as PPG 16 was not introduced until 1990 and is guidance rather than law. It's good practice to consider the archaeology of an area before planning (ie: consulting the county archaeologist and asking if any investigation needs to be done) but not compulsory. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant here, when Putney Bridge is making unverifiable speculation about how the site could of been used thousands of years ago. Unless theres real wp:reliable sources that shows that one of these sites is a real historically significant archeological site AND the government put a commercial service center OVER it then I can justify that that specific service center is notable. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's irrelevant because WP:CRYSTAL applies to "unverifiable speculation", ie: information that can't be verified. That's the meaning of "unverifiable". Archaeological reports are reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do they exist and show that these are actually significant historical archaeological sites that the government built a commercial shopping/rest area over anyway? If so I'd WELCOME the addition of that source to the relevant page(s) and gladly withdraw the AfD for those page(s), but if they don't exist it's WP:CRYSTAL and if they do exist and show no important archaeological site then they're not relevant for the notability of the site. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Talk about missing the point. Putney Bridge said there's the potential for there to be associated archaeology. If you actually read what I said instead of latching onto one insignificant detail you'd understand that I said there probably wasn't any archaeology associated with most MSAs. If there is any associated archaeology, it can be verified. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The key word there is potential that's the keyword to justify WP:CRYSTAL as invalidating the argument. This clearly falls under WP:PROVEIT. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Potential to be added to the article, not potential to be found. I have seen the artefacts plus reports at local museums and some are on display at the services. If you want to see an immediate sample, this link [2] which is already mentioned above which refers to Norton Canes. Give me a couple of weeks and I will visit some local librarys for more facts.Putney Bridge (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Finding some old flit and a log that it's use can't be determined isn't hardly groundbreaking archeological discoveries. It's definitely not going to meet the criteria for an archaeological site to justify it's own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I whole-heartedly agree that the paucity of finds at Stafford services does not merit an article of its own, although a site doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be notable. However, I have added info on the archaeological investigation as it is relevant to the construction of the services. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeology is not just about finding buried treasure. The stratification and context of finds in relation to other finds and landscape features builds up a story of the area. The BBC report proves there are finds, the archaeological report will tell much more. Putney Bridge (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That was a good suggestion Putney Bridge, a search of the Bournmouth University database of archaeological reports produces about a dozens reports relating to rescue archaeology and MSAs. Only a summary of the reports is available online, but the information is worth including in the various articles. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless theres a substantive find beyond just an artifact, it does little to establish notability for the service center or area. And a substantive find will be referenced in secondary sources not just primary. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Archaeological finds are not the basis for claims of notability, as ought to have been abundantly clear from the discussion already. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If an archaeological find is not the basis for notability then why continue this thread? Only a substansitive archaeologically significant find would be notable and be backed up by easily obtainable secondary sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you a fool or just pretending to be one for a bet? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We could continue this thread as it has lead to the improvement of the article at the centre of this AfD. That is what we're here for right? Archaeological finds are not the basis of notability, but are worth noting in the relevant articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Kingdom motorway service stations are notable for a number of reasons, although it could be argued some are more notable than others but as the proposer has lumped them together then they all need to be kept. A number of them have architectural merit, most have a working population and a physical area higher then most hamlets and villages deemed to be notable by default. Some are important locally for their economic impact in rural areas. Clacket Lane has an ancient Roman road passing through it. The fact that most are stubs is not an argument for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is true then back each one up with references, I didn't lump sum them all, I didn't nominate EVERY page. Although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one or two that do meet wp:notability requirements to justify their own page, they most definitely all do NOT meet those requirements individually. Single architectural distinctions or merits or even a unique selling point probably in it's own right doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and could definitely be added and expanded upon on the general pages Motorway service area and List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. The ones I listed I don't believe meet basic notability requirements for their own page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If these things are not actually classified as legal towns with postal codes, post offices, etc, then you can't compare them to hamlets and villages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet again, you're equating the US and the UK. "Postal codes and post offices" have no bearing on the status of anything; every street in Britain has a different postcode, and each service station will undoubtedly have its own postcode, while, rather famously, most small towns in Britain no longer have their own post office. (Incidentally, many MSAs do include a post office...) – iridescent 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again your missing the point and trying to bait this AfD into a US vs UK debate, cease and desist your bad-faith attempts to derail the topic. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have claimed, once again quite incorrectly, that motorway service areas do not have postal codes, and post offices, which is blatantly untrue. It is you who is displaying bad faith here, along with a staggering level of ignorance and intransigence. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I stated that they're not towns, and can't be compared to towns is what I stated. Stated it in a way that may be silly when you know how the postal system in UK works and I don't, sure, but I stated they're not towns and can't be equated to towns. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So is your argument now that only towns deserve to have articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm clearly stating that towns are notable, and you can't compare a non-town to a town to bolster your claim the non-town is notable because of towns. To make the general assumption that I mean if something is not a town it can't have a page is clearly assuming bad-faith. These comments are quickly approaching personal attacks and unjustified for the AfD discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note the Clacket Lane for one has a post code (TN16 2ER), and Toddington LU5 6HR, and Leigh Delamare SN14 6LB, so they are recognised as significant by the Royal Mail. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Clacket Lane is notable in that is has a Kent Postcode but is actually in Surrey. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously the UK postal service assigns postal codes to almost anything. Just like in the US (ZIP+4). This isn't grounds for notability. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You do not know whereof you speak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Personal attacks are not helpful to this discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In what way can that be considered a personal attack?? Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) It is not a personal attack. The majority of UK postcode relate to a group of premises, not to a single premise. Thus your "obviously" comment is wrong. Thus you know not whereof you speak. That's the way it works with statements that are provably false. Your personal attack comment is nothing more than mid-slinging and unhelpful --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To just out-of-hand dismiss the point of my comment as "you don't know what your talking about" is construed as a personal attack, at least to me. I'm saying that just because the postal service assigns a postal code to the area, site, road, building, which is common in most postal systems, is not grounds for notability and not even part of my original point that these places are not towns and can't gain notability by equating them to one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you do understand how the UK postal system works after all? Can't seem to make your mind up. If you really knew what you were talking about then you would not have initiated this AfD. Your continual refutation of points like "it's not a town and so can't be equated to a town" is becoming tiresome and disruptive, and I would strongly urge you to withdraw this ill-conveived AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Are we actually getting anywhere here? Since my last vist, this page has exploded into a huge mess with Raeky seemingly arguing their point for each and every single thing anyone else writes, and people throwing the same things about. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a "progress" section after just a few hours on day one? AfD's are 5 days. There still hasn't been presented any evidence that these sites meet notability requirements justifying their own wikipedia page. Lots of arguments, and lots of attempts at derailing and borderline personal attacks. Apparently a few of the editors here have very personally strong opinions of these service centers. But luckily a couple passionate editors about these centers isn't grounds for inclusion in wikipedia. Progress so far in the first 3.5 hours since it was an AfD is silly to even ask for. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've arrived at consensus. It now only remains for Racky to have the good grace to acknowledge it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus here after 3.5 hours! AfD's run 5 days minimum. This clearly doesn't meet WP:SNOW. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's running about 16 keep, 3 merge and 2 delete. Those numbers may increase, but the obvious pattern will be maintained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, numbers don't matter, substance of the arguments do. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen people think they've made substantially better arguments than you. One person agrees with your arguments. What part of that pattern can you not see? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they're not all backed up by wikipedia policy in these matters. There has yet to be one that shows wp:notability for the individual pages for the MAJORITY of these service centers. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If even you concede that notability is cogently being argued for even a minority of the subjects of the articles, then your group AfD MUST fail, else notable articles will be swept aside as a baby with the bathwater. And meanwhile you are not the best judge of whether notability in general has successfully been argued, given your anti- POV. As I say, the majority of those who have debated find differently than you. Eventually you'll have to accept that other people have legitimate views that differ from your. Do the decent thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one of my nominated pages that clearly pass wp:notability guidelines and I'll gladly remove it from the AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them probably, but certainly Knutsford services. I think in any event that you confuse the absence of a claim of notability with the absence of notability. I suggest that if you are set on AfDing every single motorway service area in the UK that you do so one at a time, as they are by no means all the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that they all probably meet criteria is not sufficient. There is nothing in Knutsford services to assert notability and to do all these individually one at a time would take MONTHS of an effort. This is far more efficient to bulk group virtually identical pages (in terms of reason for AfD) together in one AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that your effort would fail, as I could very easily add properly sourced material to prove notability even to a diehard deletionist like you. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly, you have immediately attacked my point. I was bringing up the point that people are starting to just insult each other which is never going to get anywhere. Talking of "borderline personal attacks", I apologise for being so "silly"! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to derail the topic by personal attacks isn't something that is going to be used to close this AfD. We need to not degrade ourselves that far. There is an attempt to push the AfD into that to get it closed I'm sure. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to derail this AfD; it's quite probably invalid, and even if it isn't, it's already becoming clear that there is no consensus to delete. Your actions have already been described, rightly, as disruptive and you have been asked to withdraw to prevent further disruption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QED :-( Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the nominator refers to "Rest areas" and uses the US spelling "centers" clearly indicates that he has never used a UK motorway service area, and does not appreciate that UK Planning laws prevent their creation at the whim of operators. These are at least as notable as railway stations for which there are thousnads of WP articles. I call for Speedy close as keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw

You have been asked by at least three wikipedians to withdraw this AfD. That, in my experience, is unprecedented. Please reconsider your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, in every respect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. – iride scent 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. This AfD is a complete waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing the nomination as I feel there is substastiive merit to my assertion they do not meet notability requirements for individual pages as a majority with the exception of MAYBE one or two (that I did not AfD). But as a group the vast majority of them do not. If an admin feels my nominations are completely without merit he can close at his discretion. This clearly does not meet WP:SNOW or WP:KEEP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per author's request. Note that if an editor creates a page by mistake, they can request speedy deletion by placing {{db-author}} on the page without having to go to AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year

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

Speedy delete -- I created this page entirely by accident. I meant to make this the title of a category, not an article. This is a self-nominated AfD, so please get rid of this as soon as possible. Again, my mistake. Thanks. Jrcla2 ^talk 04:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Werner Erhard#Related organizations. Consensus of various suggestions, DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados Group

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

Article fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched in multiple databases and archival research sources - but was unable to find any reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that significantly discuss the topic whatsoever. It appears the only sources that exist about it are either not-reliable, and/or not independent. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As one of a number of outfits with shifting names apt to change, merge to Werner Erhard#Related organizations or to (say) Organizations connected to Werner Erhard (a rich field for research...). -- Pedant17 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject that could be a candidate for a merge. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the multiple non-independent sources (from various directions -- Michael Jensen/SSRN, Erhard, pop-culture web-sites on Erhard) witness to the existence of the Barbados Group and to its nature. And note the several papers (and references to papers) published by the Barbados Group in Google Scholar: see this search-result list. The emergence of yet another differently-named front for the ideas of W. Erhard may suffice for mention in a wider context in a more general article. Note furthermore that primary sources have their uses -- as the Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY policy says: "a primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". And since we have to deal with popular culture here, the Wikipedia reliable-source comments on this area may apply : "Articles related to popular culture [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; [...] When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for a brief mention somewhere? Maybe. Enough such that all the questionably sourced material in this article all needs to be kept in some fashion and merged somewhere else, when it is non-notable? No. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Merge. ~~Nobody~~ Almost nobody outside the Barbados Group seems to have paid them the slightest bit of attention. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from (for example) David Warsh in his somewhat nuanced/skeptical Economic Principals analysis/backgrounder article on the Barbados Group and its members at http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/07.04.08.html (retrieved 2009-09-11) -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an opinion piece, and self-published at that. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, a reliable source! I did some searching around and didn't come across it myself. I think it does count as a reliable source as the author is enough of an expert on economics. Still, there's not enough attention being paid to them to warrant a separate article, it can be stubbed and merged to one of the Erhard articles. Fences&Windows 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice about this debate has been given at talk pages of WP:PSYCH, WP:BUSNS, WP:WPP, WP:EDU, AND WP:ORGZ. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per barbados group and cirt.--Judo112 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no "clear" arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maine Edge

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. Neutral. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't favor it. I think it outlines a growing trend, and just posted an article that contrasts the free vs. paid debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesfan215 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (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) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RSes, notable content, keep it.Simonm223 (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There be enough o' yer WP:RS fer notability. Yar! Chzz ► 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bassem Rizk

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

Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. There is one outside reference, but it is not clear how reliable that is. The prize mention is unreferenced. The article's creator has repeated removed problem tags without significant changes. Clubmarx (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google translation of the reference in the article doesn't appear to have any mention of the article subject. I'm not linguistically qualified to offer any opinion as to whether any of these Google News results indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reference doesn't support notability Rirunmot (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (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) 01:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One CD. No indication of how successful. Nothing in Allmusic. Somewhat promotional in tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected to List of villains in Static Shock#Other villains

Omnifarious

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

Part of the article is a definition, part describes a fictional character. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None of the other similar fictional characters have their own page. The article has no sources. Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Static Shock. A non-notable character. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Static Shock. No assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdpanther II

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

The primary editor has copied over an infobox from the Jagdpanther article and is adding nonsensical text. He's ignored requests for more information and has blanked the talk page regarding the requests once. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite since a Jagdpanther II is a Panther II based Jagdpanzer, or just redirect it to Jagdpanther... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there was never any concrete proposal for any such development using the Panther II chassis according to Spielberger's Panther book and Jentz's Jagdpanther book. So any such development seems to be purely post-war speculation and hence not notable. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax - a Google search doesn't return any meaningful results: [3]. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to be based in fact. Buckshot06(prof) 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Google would appear to show that no such tank was created, and no (admittedly limited) cllection of armoured warfare books doesn't highlight any such vehicle either. Skinny87 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The German language wiki lacks any mention of it. Tangurena (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article appear to have created other articles about German military equipment. Are they equally ficticious? Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have generally confined himself to only a couple of articles, most of which have been turned into redirects. The 15cm Nebelwerfer 41 article is on a legitimate weapon, but I'd need to check on the info box to see if the data is legit or not. Actually, what I need to do is to write the damn article. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. Too many issues with this article to avoid deletion. Tone 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A million dollar paradox

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

Non-notable theory; all references found in Google are self-published. ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If somehow this theory turns out to be notable, it ought to be merged into Solar eclipse as a second choice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unpublished and based upon faulty logic. (The "position" of the Sun and Moon in the sky is affected by refraction in the exact same way that light is bent in the atmosphere.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook example of original research, and none of it is in the cited links. Zetawoof's refutation of the entire theory is also convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Fringe theory. Also the "million dollar" part not explained, so weird title.Borock (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally OR and non-notable. Also nonsense (the analysis assumes that the Sun rotates around the Earth), which wouldn't matter if there were multiple independent reliable sources, but there aren't any. --Lambiam 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alexander (filmmaker)

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

non notable person with limited third party reliable resources to attest to his notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment the 'references' provided are weak, irrelevant, and mostly blogs. the ones that might be considered third party, reliable sources are not directly about the person, but about a movie he did. there is simply not widespread or independent coverage of the article's subject. the creator of the article has been creating these unnecessary articles of non notable people because these people are somehow related to the original article this person created, which was deleted twice. now he's trying to slide the non-notable/deleted person's name into other articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film in this article does not seem that notable either. Clubmarx (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete though leaning towards delete - I took a look at the existing references list for reliable sources that show evidence of notability. There was one national coverage RS which is a review of the movie and one regional coverage RS which is also a review of the movie. There is no RS coverage of Tim Alexander among the article's references.

~~"Tired Black Man Movie Blog" Reviews and other Information~~ Movie's own blog. It looks like this is controlled by Tim Alexander presumably it can be used as a WP:SELF source of information about Tim Alexander and his movie.
"A Male Answer to Waiting to Exhale" NPR Weekend All Things Considered, 2007. Movie review on national media. The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, is not covered in this review though he's quoted twice. The same NPR journalist who did this review also has this snippet/article about the movie.
~~"Official "Diary Of A Tired Black Man" Movie Website"~~ Movie's own web site. This is ok as a WP:SELF source of information.
~~"A Diary Worth Keeping"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Black Entertainment USA"~~ Blogged review.
"KansasCity.com Movie review in regional paper by the paper's professional movie critic.^[4] The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, has trivial coverage in this review though he mentioned several times in relation to making the movie and is quoted once. The part where he gets covered is the sentence "Alexander — a fashion photographer who has never made a film before."
~~"All Movie Portal Review"~~ Blogged review.
~~"DVD Talk Review"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Chud"~~ Blogged review.
~~"Kam Williams Review"~~ Personal web sites / blog.
~~http://www.averagebro.com/2009/02/averagebro-goes-to-movies-diary-of.html~~ Blog.

This is not a delete yet as I don't have time at the moment to go through the Google news and other sources to see if there is other RS coverage that could push at least the movie into notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from comment to delete as I only found one RS coverage that could establish notability for Tim Alexander.

No hits in Google Books nor Scholar. Google News finds:
May 18, 2006 The web site is down at the moment but it's in the Google cache. The article is from the Washington Informer which appears to be a regional WP:RS newspaper. The article's author appears to be a regular correspondant.^[5] This would be a great WP:N item except that this is an interview rather than an article about the subject. The article's author did not cover the subject himself enough to make this "significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail."
Jun 10, 1990 Possible trivial mention.
Aug 4, 2007 on AP and reprinted widely - Trivial mention of both the subject and his movie.
Feb 16, 2007 - Trivial mention of both subject and movie.
Sep 18, 2008 Blog review of movie. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but local coverage does not confer notability. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguluhan Music Festival

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

Non-notable musical event. User234 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival has 3 articles at Pulp Magazine and will be releasing a home video and its logo is copyrighted in the Philippines—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival has been established since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if it existed since 2004, it may not have enough notability to merit extensive coverage. I wasn't able (yet) to verify the references mentioned in Pulp magazine, and then again I'm also unable to verify this from other sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the Friendster and Facebook profiles, this event is not extensively covered by notable media sources (broadsheets, for instance). Starczamora (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the music festival doesn't need mainstream or extensive media support such as notable media sources that you usually prefer, it has a cult following in the music scene. now if you're not convinced with that why don't you talk to the editor in-cheif of Pulp Magazine for you to find out the impact of the music festival.
It also has been copyrighted by the Intellectual Property office in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaguluhan Music Festival need not be mainstream it is an underground music event that is widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't blame you for not knowing the music festival, maybe you need to research more than just your usual resources. just because it isn't in the mainstream sources it is not well-known.(talk)

If it's really "widely known" then it may already be considered as having entered the mainstream...how can something be mainstream be not widely known at least, in this context, in the Philippines (if not the world)? And under the Philippines, virtually anything copyrightable can be copyrighted (except for those that should be patented or trade-/service-marked), which includes (but not limited to) musical works, sculptures, speeches...well, even love letters can be copyrighted. That doesn't make them automatically notable. You may want to read up on Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources to guide you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music festival is an "Underground" music event that has a "cult" following in the region of Cavite. A cult-following means it has a strong fan base that need not have the mainstream support because let's face it, mainstream doesn't give a damn at the underground music scene. Now if you're not contended with that kindly contact Pulp Magazine's Editor-in-chief to prove the notability of the music event. We're not putting an article at wikipedia that isn't factual but really it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide you a copy of the three articles courtesy from Pulp Magazine via email for your perusal with regards to the notability of the Kaguluhan music festival and it's entities. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not everything that is factual is automatically eligible to be included on Wikipedia. Nobody contests the facts that, say, the President of the Philippines has guards, but that doesn't mean that all the guards are eligible to have their own Wikipedia article. Nobody also disputes that people were born and die, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a birthday or who died can have their own Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability limits the number of articles that may be included in order for Wikipedia to attain a certain standard for articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So even an article from Pulp magazine doesn't meet your standards and notability? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't a magazine considered a reliable source for information other than the usual broadsheets? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Usually, yes. But since this article cites just one magazine, we need other sources to verify the information on the article. This is to eliminate the chances of any possible conflict of interest between the subject of the article and those who created or who add content to the articles. Other than Pulp magazine, blogs and message boards, I was unable to find any other third-party reference. (And no, don't give me another blog, it's not allowed either.)
One more thing: Pulp magazine may be a notable magazine (although as of today it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article), but that doesn't mean that everything that gets mentioned on it automatically becomes notable as well. Hindi namamana ang notability, it's not passed on to the magazine's content topics. The notability of a Wikipedia topic is independent of its source material's notability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that the music event needs other articles to get the notable exposure it needs? well then, since the 6th event is going to take place this November 7th, we might as well put an article on a newspaper for your info, though the article isn't as big as you expect like other mainstream concerts in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is best to read WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's guideline on notability, especially the section "General notability guideline". It should clarify many of the concerns aired above. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only notable reference that we have is our yearly articles from Pulp Magazine. Now if this is what wikipedia's criteria is, then feel free to cast your nomination to delete my 2 articles with regards to the Kaguluhan Music Festival. I couldn't care less anymore, Mainstream media support doesn't care less about the Philippine underground music scene anyways. Besides the music festival's article had a good run since 2007. Megr1124 (talk

~~Weak keep~~ The fact that the music festival is covered in Pulp (whether or not it is a passing or dominant mention is one that I still cannot answer) is a possible indication of its notability, and is something that we should not discount simply because the article creator cannot provide the articles in question. A brief Google search (which apparently was not present in the entire course of this AfD) says that this event has some 7,300 hits. However, what strikes at me more is the reason for why the nominator nominated this article in the first place, as I remain unconvinced by the simple explanation "non-notable musical event", which to me smacks of systemic bias, when there are mentions in a major music magazine. If it really was that unnotable, then I wonder why this article has been here for so long. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After much contemplation, I change my vote to keep. To the closing admin: I am under the suspicion that the "delete" vote by the article's creator may have been done under pressure by the original delete votes above, prior to this keep vote. Please take that into consideration when closing this AfD. Thanks! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that this music festival has been covered by Pulp magazine multiple times over sa few years seems to imply that this festival is notable to some degree. I wish there were other more mainstream coverage elsewhere and not just in Pulp, but I see no problem with this article on the festival being retained just as long as the sources are not too primary. --seav (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To user Seave, Unfortunately the media and or mainstream support couldn't care less about the Independent Pinoy Rock and Metal underground music scene because of too much red tape and bureaucracy, It is also the first time that the music festival's notability is questioned due to lack of other secondary sources when the article has existed since 2007 and merited countless hits on the web. Because of what has transpired, the producers and organizers myself included are planning to release a promo article on the newspaper with regards to the 6th installment and its initial concert film which will be released direct to home video for a limited supply only from its independent label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...you're implying that you and the organizers of this music festival know each other and are actually planning to release promo articles for newspapers? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to meet the producers and event organizers because of this matter. I've been telling them so much about you with regards to the credibility of Kaguluhan music festival as a music event. They were very upset that the article of the concert film was gone and didn't get to browse it first hand, thanks to you and now this. I actually suggested the idea with them to put up a press release to some newspapers for "your" opinion's sake, Pulp advised however that Kaguluhan's growing popularity is based from an emerging word of mouth from its notable musicians/bands who have previously performed in the festival along with the magazine's support, and contesting it here with you and Wikipedia is just merely a waste of time based from their experiences. You once previously claimed that wikipedia only obtains information from secondary and third party sources, but this I ask: "where do you get the sources of the subject being discussed?" from it's original sources right? so on the contrary; "Notability can also be inherited." Wikipedia cannot promote I am aware of that, but we can however document the subject's progress. Now, whatever transpires in the fate of the notability of Kaguluhan Music Festival and its related articles, the organizers however are very thankful that the festival's recognition in the local underground music scene has already been noticed even in the web (despite that you and Wikipedia strongly deny it) since this article has existed from 2007 meriting with 7,300 hits and still counting. Though I will continue as possible in documenting the music festival's history timeline even if this article still has yet to be resolved. As for my suggestions with the organizers, It's still their decision not mine. So don't ever implicate me of any Conflict of Interest or me influencing them what to do with regards to the subject being questioned here, but they do however commend what I've contributed. --- Megr1124 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-loop deletion factor

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

Neither notable or verifiable. A term used in a single publication in the "Journal of anti-aging" about the journal a "journal" that strains the definition of this word. Zero hits in PubMed, one hit (this "paper") in Google Scholar. The other references in the article do not use this term and unsurprisingly do not relate to this "research". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete merge into aging or other related article. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? What part of this article do you think is verifiable and notable? Tim

Vickers (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not see your note on it not being verifiable. I saw the references cited on the article and I imagined it had something to do with the molecular biology of ageing. (surprised that we have no such article, and Evolution of ageing does not seem to have well vetted content)Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't stated that it failed WP:V (I added that after your comment), just discussed the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that the journal and the author seem to have the same e-mail address, as if the author is also the publisher. The journal is too new to find indicators of trustworthiness like listing in selective services like medline or journal citation reports. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO if nothing else. And the nominator's else is accurate, if understated. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As as a non-notable, un-verifiable neologism. (The author of the paper is not the Vladimir Stoyanov on whom we currently have an article, but the revision history of that page might be of interest to the idle curious). Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (…as might that of telomere and ageing) --Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content issues aside (and there are many), the entry is solely based on an article which appeared in a journal of very dubious provenance. All relevant links (e.g., to the Editorial Board) seem to be broken, and it gives an email contact that smacks of a hoax account (zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk). Also, this purported source was the only article in it. Malljaja (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the the journal that provides the only source is reliable, and signs pointing toward the opposite. Narayanese (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete.

Dear Wiki members. My name is Vladimir Stoyanov and I have just come back from Cambridge, where in the SENS 4 anti aging annual conference I was giving one of the talks exactly on this novel t-loop deletion factor. The links to the abstract and the talk in Cambridge are included in the actual article. Regarding to the new 2009 online FREE journal of anti aging: you are correct appears that there were some broken links, but this is now fixed. Note however that this is not a commercial journal, which is gathering force on the bases of this year SENS4 conference, where telomere direct targeting was discussed in some more details. Thus please if you have any question regarding the validity of the paper itself, then please contact the editorial board and/or any expert on telomeres. Note however that as a new journal there is still gathering of new papers, which is in a working progress and takes time, especially when a free service is targeted. Regarding the PubMed search: clearly you are not aware, which is ok, but PubMed is an additional submission procedure, which takes upto2 years after the paper has been published, whereas the t-loop deletion factor has been just published. My wish was to keep wikipedia up to date, as I and all members of this conference in Cambridge do believe this paper to be in a great help in understanding aging and focus on the anti aging approach. Thus can you please avoid deletion tags without consulting first. I will put the text back as it was expecting if there are any future questions to address the editor board directly, which is as you have quoted zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk, which was referred to my used Malljaja (see above) as "smacks of a hoax account", which clearly makes no sense and it is highly unprofessional to use such language. Note that this is an absolutely normal email account using professional speed and configuration for emailing, which is clearly preferable compare to the university email services, which programs are highly simplified and time consuming, which clearly is a knowledge known to the user Mallajaja, which was never contacting this email (as I have checked now with the editorial board).

Why nobody read Volume 12, Supplement 1 ISSN 1549-1684 of the Journal of Rejuvenation Research, which have many Editors: Aubrey de Grey; Michael West, VIlhelm Bohr, Rudolph Tanzi, Gregory Stock and many others world leaders in aging. Thus why don't you just apologise and stop being extremely rood, as you are not suppose to tell me what to do and where to publish! Also just because I am the chief editor, do not mean that I am biased, nor that I have revised my own paper. Why don't you see the many advantages of this new journal, which focus on helping the very particular target of anti aging? Moreover who are you to speculate how many computers there are for a single IP address, and what have this to do with your mission "to promote knowledge". Appears to me that you have forgotten what are you here for. Thus perhaps it is a good idea for you to read the wiki idea and contribute. Note that none of you have any knowledge of anti aging and telomeres, thus you are better use the professional work for the professionals, instead of embarrassing the image of wikipedia. It is pity, as even a bachelor degree BSc (as you) will see the original making sense mechanism, as long as it have a look at the paper. Thus all of you: "how about you actually read the paper?". Further to that I should say that you should be the last people to be even considering to be deleting my contributions, as if you actually read them you will see that I have made only additions to our current knowledge, so that the telomere science community can take advantage of as much info regarding telomeres as possible. Note that PubMed use is most importantly not up to date source, and it is surely not enough for a telomere maintenance ideas, as Maria Blasco is the one managing to induce telomerase in somatic cells, but her problem is that cancer levels also increase in her cells. Thus it is my approach which is the ONLY one who target directly telomere maintenance. Thus I allow for people to look at what helped me to find the telomere maintenance gene, as I wish for more people to work independently on targeting directly this telomere shortening problem. Now if you don't mind I have work to do, so it will be of great help for everyone, if you put back my additions, as I will not do that for you! I had enough of your childish attitude.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.113.227 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2009

Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying your credentials, so your opinions must be backed by reliable sources. Equally you have no way of verifying that I have a PhD in biochemistry, know quite a lot already about telomeres and the end-replication problem, and did in fact read your paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete: 08.09.2009 2.46am. Clearly there are many sources of references for this novel t-loop deletion factor. It was also published in the Journal of Rejuvenation Research see page 52. There are more abstracts published by Stoyanov V at this page, which will help you resolve the notable and verifiable sources. Note also that the actual paper is very good and actually really important in the anti aging research.

Aaabbbzzz (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — Aaabbbzzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. We don't have Wikipedia articles about single scientific articles, especially articles that are published in unheard of journals that have only published a single article, especially if the author is Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Vladimir, seriously, that's an untenable conflict of interest. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic you will forget about this "journal" and submit to established journals that conduct independent peer review. PubMed indexing is standard for biomedical journals, and it takes nothing like two years to arrange; it's pretty routine and should be in place before a journal launches. You might be thinking of Medline indexing. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the so many good reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a way to publish research that can't seem to get into any real journals.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I pointed out at the AfD for Will Vladimir Stoyanov, the IP that Stoyanov is using here is the same IP that is web hosting much of the referencing content. Look at the direct link to the "Journal of Anti-Aging" in that article. It's an individual trying to use WP to publish original thought. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable original research; self promotion. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aaabbbzzz (talk) and Hendentry (talk) who created Will Vladimir Stoyanov appears to be the same. Dy yol (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suhotra Svami

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

Non notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a prominent religious leader in ISKCON (The Hare Krishna Movement). He was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi and an initiating guru. That makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the article. Every statement is supported by RS now.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still about a non-notable subject. In addition, the sources do little to add to the subject's notability. Article still deserves a delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suhotra Swami was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi, and an initiating guru. I've made some research and found out that presently there're only 22 individuals in ISKCON who occupy those leadership posts at the same time. There are 26 or 27 more who are only sannyasis ang gurus. I think that any individual from this group potentially deserves an article on Wiki. I already gave my arguments on AfD debates on other ISKCON senior leaders. In previous AfD debates several editors presented and supported similar view.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a leader of a medium-sized part of a major religion. I've looked through the references in the article and, from the ones that have anything visible through Google Books this one looks like the clincher: a book published by what must be just about the most fundamentalist Catholic university in the world, so would not be expected in any way to try to promote the reputation of a Hindu. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squeez

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I can't find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Them From Space 03:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unforgettable (Selena). — Jake Wartenberg 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena)

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

These albums are simply remastered releases of early Selena albums. I have attempted to merge and redirect the articles to the original album only to be reverted on more than one occasion. I still support a redirect of each. There are five volumes in all. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.The same has been done regarding Unforgettable: Limited Edition in redirecting to Unforgettable (Selena). MaJic (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect. I was unable to find much in the way of sources, but I think that the albums are still notable however it seems unlikely they can be full content. It's more an editorial issue thatn anything else.Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether this content should be included in standalone articles or merged is not a deletion issue, and should be handled on the relevant talk pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect. Although I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that this may be handled better on the talk pages, in this case where there have been multiple reversions, deletion is at least a viable possibility, and so I don't have a problem with dealing with this at AfD. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BVV Trade Fairs Brno Co.

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

falls foul of WP:SPAM as something that is essentially an advert masquerading as an article. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable. Needs clean up work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point in time is reads like an advert. Most of the material relates to events which may in fact be notable, but notability is not inherited. I don't see this passing WP:CORP. Maybe the best is to delete and allow recreation of a sourced article that meets WP:N, WP:CORP and WP:RS. I'll also add that the only linked site for information is not accessible to all browsers making it difficult to meet WP:V for many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ankan Deka

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

(talk) 01:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing at all in RS to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy page.. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Ellefson

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

Article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on WIkipedia. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2009 (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) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity (song)

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

This song was not released as a single, did not chart on any national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, has no reliable sources, does not have enough material to warrant an article and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub article. Aspects (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The scope of Archuleta's career is not holistic enough at this point that this level of minutia has significance or relevance to any but a tiny fraction of his fans. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Ed Fever (film)

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

Non-notable pornographic film, article consists only of brief plot summary, short cast list, and unsupported claim taken from user comment at IMDB. No assertion of WP:NOTABILITY, no sources, no indication of any independent 3d party coverage, therefore failing the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Film's cast included many notable porn stars, some of whom were doing mainstream work at the same time. Article helps avoid reader confusion by disambiguating Co-Ed Fever (TV series). Added some citations since nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by Jokestress. Well done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the sourcing that's been added doesn't demonstrate notability. Aside from a now-deleted link to a retailer site, the citations to the "almanac" and the encyclopedias fail under the applicable notability guideline, WP:NOTFILM, which states that sources like "listings in comprehensive film guides" are not sources satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Mentions and trivial coverage in books of trivia and books of lists don't change that. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources would....but this film doesn't have that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets at least three criteria per WP:NOTFILM

It was shot on 35 mm film and the film had a national theatrical release (see one-sheet).
The film was given a commercial re-release (it has had several re-releases since its film debut, including VHS and at least 2 DVD releases). See re-release 1, re-release 2, re-release 3)
The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. For instance, controversial figure Paul Barresi appeared in the film as his first straight-market porno following involvement in gay-market modeling and film.

I am happy to provide sourcing in print and online biographies for notable figures who appear in the film. Jokestress (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jokestress. Passes WP:NOTFILM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jokestress's comments regarding WP:NOTFILM don't hold water. Neither being shot on 35mm film nor having a theatrical release is listed as a NOTFILM criterion (and neither is even mentioned in the article, to say nothing of being reliably sourced, if that matters here). The links Jokestress provides have nothing to do with a commercial rerelease of the film -- which in NOTFILM refers to theatrical releases, not DVD releases. (The criterion wouldn't make sense if it applied to DVD releases, it would say that the longer it takes a film to appear on DVD, the more notable the film is.) And the third claim isn't supported by reliable sources -- that may be what it says in Barresi's article, but when you check the cited source, the information it's cited for isn't there! The overall GNG problem remains -- the only sources found so that discuss this are the sort characterized as "trivial" by the guideline, not supporting notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For an adult film to have a national run at that time was unusual, especially one shot on 35. Most were shot on 16, and some on 8. This was among the last wave of nationally-released narrative pornographic works prior to the straight-to-video market explosion. The multiple re-releases certainly qualify under WP:NOTFILM, which says nothing about theatrical re-release. See General principles, criterion 2, item 3. Furthermore, the adult film industry distribution model changed radically in the five years following the film's original theatrical run. Grindhouse theaters closed across the country as the market moved to video sales and rentals. The fact that this film had three re-releases and is still sold online meets WP:NOTFILM criteria. This featured an ensemble cast of very well-known actors and was made by XRCO Hall of Fame producer Harold Lime and AVN Hall of Fame director Gary Graver. I still believe this article is most helpful for general readers to disambiguate the short-lived TV series of the same name and release date. Jokestress (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the relevant claims you make are reliably sourced information. (Nor is the Harold Lime claim). And your "rerelease" argument is absolute nonsense; it amounts to saying that any film made more than five years before DVDs were available is inherently notable if was later released on DVD. That's flat-out ridiculous. Rather than arguing based on your ideas about what makes a porn film important, please provide what's required by the general notability guideline: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Delete. Doesn't pass NOTFILM for me per Wolfowitz's arguments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NOTFILM. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not prove with independent reliable sources that it meets WP:NOTFILM. Algébrico (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2000 MTV Movie Awards. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Matrix

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

Non-notable comedy short. Suggest merge annd redirect to 2000 MTV Movie Awards on which it was origially shown. magnius (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect 14 news hits you can redirect without a AFD. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that it's "non-notable", but my reasons are subjective. (In case you're interested, I feel it merges "Sex and the City" and "The Matrix" seamlessly, with high production values and in-character cameos -- it's the best of the shorts I've seen on the MTV Movie Awards.) My real problem is that I don't know how to defend my opinion that something is or is not notable. What would it take to convince you? What would be a "notable" comedy short? ShawnVW (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability: one that has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". See the page for details. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable by itself. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Athletes

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

Neologism, violates WP:NFT. There are no reliable sources for this term. Addition of a redlinked athlete smacks of an attempt at an end run around WP:ATHLETE. Also looks like advertising. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unsourced neologism and yes, advertising just make a delete a certainty Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2009 (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) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and reads like nonsense. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

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

non notable ranking method. It springs from a single academic journal article, which isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's noted in Pairwise comparison, maybe a redirect to that article? --Abc518 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect per Abc518. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in the article --Abc518 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 12 non-Wikipedia Google hits. A redirect of this long term given the complete absence of interest in this system would be inappropriate. I have removed its mention in Pairwise comparison per WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on the article I wrote ... But I can assure you that this method, which I co-invented, is, although relatively new, a bona fide approach to multi-criteria decision analysis. As such it belongs in a list of such methods at the article "multi-criteria decision analysis", and it needs to be explained (presumably in a linked article). The reference in the article is to an important peer-reviewed journal in the area (in the field of Operations Research). If you are in doubt, have a look at the article. If you cannot easily obtain a full copy, I am happy to email you a PDf. Paulwizard (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Note "co-invented" and "relatively new"; there is a single journal article on the matter. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines require multiple independent, reliable, sources giving significant coverage. One reliable source giving significant coverage is not enough, particularly when that journal article is not at all independent of the method's "creator".

Sure, I wrote the article referred to, but the journal in which it appears is independently and blind peer refereed (by experts in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis and the journal's editors). The article was only published (online) last week (after over 2 years spent in the reviewing and editing process). Please note the name of the journal too: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (equivalent to the title of the article at which I added the new method described in the article being discussed here.) Paulwizard (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make a difference - the journal article was written by you, who hardly counts as a third party. You're missing the main point; explain how your new method passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically: Has this method been commented on in at least 2 sources by people who were not involved in its creation? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Abductive. --Robin (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking third-party sources at this time; could be recreated later once some independent analysis appears. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus after 20 days of discussion on WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. JForget 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gina LaMarca

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this deserves a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to follow up the opinion on wether the recent removal of Penthouse Pets from WP:PORNBIO extends to Pet of the Year. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to satisfy the fifth prong of PORNBIO with several mainstream appearances if you believe her.[6] AVN profiles are sometimes unreliable because they mirror wikipedia for some of the profiles but this profile is not one of them. I know I've seen her in some of those roles back in the 90s. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also believe being Penthouse Pet of the Year is a notable award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Roles like "hooker" and "seductress" don't really look all that notable. Nor does appearing in Penthouse proprietary videos. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta related, but why is Playboy Playmate still on PORNBIO is Penthouse Pet was removed? Penthouse is just as well known and notable as Playboy, and Penthouse Pet is their version of the Playboy Playmate. It really should be either both are included or neither are. Keep as being Penthouse Pet of the Year makes her notable. TJ Spyke 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Pet of the Year is notable award, plus several mainstream appearances. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Penthouse Pet of the Year is notable. There is also other work to add to notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not present independent reliable secondary sources (IAFD and AVN, IMDb are not reliable per WP:BIO). Algébrico (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced her PotM in 1993 and PotY 1995 status from the Penthouse website itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo zampolli

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

High number of GHits, but mostly associated with Page Six type short blurbs. Probably best know for using high-end fashion models to sell exclusive properties in Manhattan and return of a lost expensive Rolex. No GNEWS of substance. CSD removed by SPA. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This summary is full of baseless accusations. First of all, Paolo Zampolli is a legitamate businessman who was a pioneer in the fashion modeling business. The comments above related to "using high-end models to sell exclusive properties" was about 0.0001% of Zampolli's business in the fashion industry. The accusation of "CSD removed by SPA" is also baseless as I (Notorious_guy) am not a SPA. I am an Wikipedia user doing as Wikipedia instructs users to do when they see a baseless claim for deletion. Wikipedia ASKS USERS TO DELETE THE TAG!!!! Sometimes the system of tag deletion works and the system of editors policing does not. This is one of those cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notorious guy (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The difficulty of creating an article that is violates WP:COI is it sometimes clouds one's view of the facts. Nothing in the summary is incorrect nor is anything there an accusation. That said, I would focus on showing how this article meets the criteria in WP:BIO, WP:REF, and WP:VERIFY. Without this the article may fail the AfD. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brac Systems

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

Article may not pass WP:ORG. "Significant coverage" is debatable. Coverage is mainly a few trade magazine articles, some minor feature articles which all parrot the same marketing/advertising info, and an appearance on a local television show. Seems to be simply advertising for a small company. Not clear cut enough for a prod, so nominating through a consensus process. Crockspot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note by nom - Many of the ghits for Brac Systems actually refer to two other organizations, Base Realignment and Closure Systems, and Budget Rent A Car Systems. - Crockspot (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CareerBall

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

Article has exactly 23 google hits - 2 of those from Wikipedia. Other links refer to a book published on scribd and a website with the same name. The book author appears to be the creator of the article. noq (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability, has an odor of original research. Crockspot (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title "CareerBall" was apparently coined by the article author for his book, which falls under the category of articles wrongly titled as neologisms. But even the article itself smacks of original research, and doesn't feel rightly encyclopedic. It wouldn't surprise me if it was copied directly from his book, and I don't think it's salvageable. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing-Thing

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

This game's claim to fame is the "ATi CrossFire People's Choice Award", and a citation to a press release is provided. However, no reliable, independent sources appear to be available and therefore fails basic verification policy - and by extension fails the general notability guideline. The award, which itself has not attracted coverage beyond press releases, it not strong enough to support a article on a whole game series. Marasmusine (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, no sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (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) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find a reference to the actual award; it seems to have been a one-time sponsorship by ATI for some fringe website's awards (not an award from ATI itself), and aside from the press release the website no longer even hosts info about the awards. As far as I'm concerned, it was nothing more than a marketing/publicity gimmick and does not lend any notability to the subject. Therefore, with no other claim to notability, the article should be deleted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a single about.com review for one of the games, and a small one at that, there's no notability demonstrated in the article and none apparent from a search. Someone another 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian dub

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

Contested prod. Music genre with no assertion of notability. No indication of any established band represented. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (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) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, and nothing to be found on Google either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boomtown Theatre

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

No reliable sources establishing notability, and it is highly unlikely that any will be found for this short-lived local venue. There is (was) no particularly significant coverage in even the local media. The article appears to have been created by the owner, several years ago. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable in any verifiable source, and no sources are provided. N2e (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizsensors

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

Third-party contested speedy. Small company, no third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mentions on Google News (only one mismatch) makes this company unheard of. The website appears to be registered to a person in West Bengal, India but the website itself has no real corporate information such as company registration number. Consequently all we can see of this company is a website with no supporting sources as to its trading status so it may well just be a hangover from a failed speculative stab at marketing.—Ash (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Meiswinkle

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject, one of ten minor candidates in the 2009 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, does not seem to have any special notability indicated in the article. Several articles are linked to on the page, but only a couple of those seem relevant to the establishment of the subject's notability. The rest (Flickr photos of newspaper articles from the 1990s) seem only to go toward supporting the statement in the article that "his experiences fighting corruption lead [sic] to his political aspirations." Ultimately, this article fails WP:NN and WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2009 (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) 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam under WP:Spam. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Whoosit (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was listed for 16 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Though an AFD tag for some reason was not placed on the article, the debate was sorted and was listed on the log for 13 days. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ixquick

Not notable and written like an ad. 120 million searches in five years, which amounts to less than 100,000 per day. Only other indication of notability is a "EuroPriSe" award, which doesn't seem to itself be notable (supranational government projects aren't automatically notable). May be salvageable if merged e.g. into an article about search privacy. Neon Merlin 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Forbes article devotes a few paragraphs to the site. The site is also discussed in a number of books ([7], [8], [9], etc). There's not really a huge amount to say about it, but I think it's barely notable enough. The current article doesn't seem too bad to me, at least in terms of tone. It would be nice to replace some of the refs from Ixquick itself. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 6 September 2009 (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) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The first relist was 3 days after filing due to the AFD not being transcluded so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The article doesn't have an AFD banner. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like above, I found [10] and [11]. I believe google scholar yields a few results too. ceranthor 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Faberge

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

While she may be notable or, more specifically, a notable person, it isn't clear to me from the article, since it isn't established in the first place that a company's internal division for researching the company's background is notable at large or that, by extension, being one of that internal division's founding members makes one notable. I am particularly moved to have deletion considered because of the creation comment, "Entry reinserted at the request of Sarah Fabergé", which implies that this is a vanity piece rather than an objective article about a notable person. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion; it isn't a place to post your resume. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, no evidence of third-party, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If the company is notable, and ancestors of this person are notable, that does not mean this person is automatically notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:A7. No assertion of notability, not to mention sources. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Weapon (Guitar FX)

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

Non-notable product. Has only been used by one band, Disturbed (band), for and with whose guitarist the pedal was designed. No non-commercial third-party coverage has been made of this. It is a product which has no significance to music history, and as an effect there's nothing special about it. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (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) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A product that has only been used by one band so it's not independently notable. This is an unlikely redirect. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAB effects

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

Non-notable product line from a large manufacturer with its own page. All the important content from this article is already in the Danelectro article. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product sums it up. Just being used by someone notable isn't enough.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2009 (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) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zubairu Dalhatu Malami

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

fails WP:BIO simply being a staff member of a politician doesn't grant automatic notability. yes it can be verified [12] nothing in gnews [13]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pulmonary embolism. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria

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

One of numerous sets of criteria for the diagnosis or exclusion of pulmonary embolism. No evidence of widespread use. Not individually notable. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: PubMed comes up with four different resources [14] and some of the first 80 hits on Google seem more than promising. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and merge to Pulmonary embolism#Diagnosis. This isn't really suitable for a separate page, but it has been talked about enough in medical circles to warrant including briefly in the main article. Fences&Windows 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove copyvio text from here, merge to Pulmonary embolism#Diagnosis, award article a prize for its stunningly unwieldy title. pablo_hablo. 10:18, 15 September 2009

It's all about the acronyms in medicine... PERC. Snappy. Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inprocomm IPN2220

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

Non-notable, rare wireless chip having its own page? Come on, not even common ones like the Ralink RT2573 have their own page!

The article also has an advertisement-esque feel to it. NetRolller 3D 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are many chipsets which are more common. However, this chipset is present in many Acer and Toshiba notebooks, which makes it far from "rare". It is also one of the few wireless chipsets for which no free driver exists. Sergioag (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-notability. Jack007 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found to verify notability TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not support notability. pablo_hablo. 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin: - the article has never had an AFD tag on it. I have just added the tag. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inprocomm. As one of their products, it is mentioned in the company article and provides some vefry basic information. It cannot stand alone as all I can find a repress releases - Whpq (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slight consensus towards deleting. Article doesn't have any strong refs nor have they been provided. In other words, it appears to be notable for a single event only. Thus, deleting with no prejudice against creation if/when reliable sources are found. tedder (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer TakeBack Campaign

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

Non-notable recycling initiative. No sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gotta look for them, to find them. Inept nomination; 'power user' does not mean horsepower, but finesse. Incident found with "What links here": Yahoo Search for "Computer+TakeBack+Campaign+plane+banner" and sources for the incident that I added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single publicity stunt does not create a notable organization.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual evidence that what they did was important in the recycling movement. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a stub, needing significant updating, expansion and citations, but should not be deleted. The Computer TakeBack Campaign (now the Electronics TakeBack Coalition) is a critically important electronics recycling initiative involving organizations and individuals across North America and having significant impacts on both private sector behavior & public policy. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (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) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. For some reason this debate was not transcluded on the log for the 15th of August and has remained open since then. Since it can use a little more participation, I have relisted it. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (environmental campaigner) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of notability, although rather low. Plenty of extra ref can be found. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be cited frequently in the media regarding electronics recycling. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should be deleted, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the article's two sources, the second doesn't even mention the group. And while the stunt may have gotten two sentences in an article about Jobs (and btw: an article by the Associated Press is not the same as a press release), that doesn't mean that Apple's actions before and after the stunt can be said to be related. If there's anything sourced and encyclopedic here, move it to Ted Smith (environmentalist). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AFD was closed by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) who deleted the article at 06:21UTC, September 9, 2009. I am just adding the closing templates and removing subsequent comments. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Third Sikh Holocaust 1984

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

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}}.

A blatant and clear-cut case of POV pushing. The term "Third Sikh Holocaust" gets only 1,600 hits on Google (the first few of which are YouTube videos) and absolutely zero hits on Google Scholar. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no previous good version to which to revert, this is hopelessly in violation of WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I considered whether an article rename would suffice, but reading through the article, it is clear that it is a irremediable piece of soapboxing. Other articles created by the same user Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk · contribs)

also need to be scrutinized to see if there is anything worth retaining. (read for example footnote 52 in Harbhajan Singh Yogi) Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has also created Wadda Ghalughara and Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa which roughly translate as "Big holocaust/massacre" "Small holocaust/massacre". Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I noticed and examined the other two articles, and Google turned up some scholarship on the first two "Sikh holocausts" (which are only called such by partisan sources). A merge into a new article such as Sikh persecution in the 18th century or something along those lines will likely be the end result. We're attempting to rectify the neutrality and title issues separately from this article since those two have the possibility of becoming viable articles whereas this one is irredeemable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of POV pushing with no reliable source verifiability. Not one hit on gbooks or gscholar (unlikely given the scope of religious studies and ethnic studies at major universities). The only gnews link is a partisan source. Also part of this set of articles was this AfD that resulted in a delete, but one that had similar amount of reference padding to Harbhajan Singh Yogi and had overlapping editors. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly PoV, (as probably are most articles with the title holocaust). Though there does need to be an NPOV article on the many allegations of unprovoked killings of Sikhs during this period. Imc (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely an essay/opinion piece in tone and style. Priyanath ^talk 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Delete. If this is already covered elsewhere, then I see no reason to keep this article. I would agree that this article is indeed "hopelessly PoV" when it would require a major rewrite to have a more neutral tone and when it seems likely that people would be offended by the idea of a rewrite. NPOV can be done-- the articles on The Holocaust and the Final Solution have done rather well in keeping an encyclopedic tone on an emotionally-charged subject -- but those are the collective work of many editors. Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Note The existence of other articles is not really relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:OTHERCRAP TeamQuaternion (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is highly POV. The matter is already covered in more neutral articles such as 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency. utcursch | talk 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I forgot I was reading an encyclopedia whilst reading this. It seemed more like Sikh propaganda. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clearly POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am picking this article as my keeper of the day. I noticed that it has plenty of sources, well over 100, and I am not exactly sure what makes it so point of view. It may well have a few lines within it that are point of view, but there is no reason that these problems could not in theory be fixed. Point of view problems are considered a rather poor reason for deleting an article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfDThe topic of the article is certainly notable and verifiable. I am not Sikh or Indian, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here as far as the political agenda. Deletion seems to be a very coercive way of dealing with content and an author, when discussion and rewriting seem to be more of the answer, I am going to check the discussion page, to see if these issues have even been discussed. Seems like this should have been done before the article was nominated.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Utcursch mentions, there are already NPOV articles on exactly the same topic. Sentences like freedom-loving Sikhs offered up a disproportionate sacrifice to liberate their country from the shackles of colonial rule. and inspiring sacrifices of the Sikhs make me wonder whether TeamQuaternion (above) actually read the page. You don't need to even be familiar with Wiki's policies to realise that the tone and agenda pushed by these POV forks have no place here. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I already fixed the text you are talking about in one spot, if it is stated elsewhere I can fix that one as well. Even more glaring is that the Sikh figures of casualties (40,000 to 60,000) are stated as being fact, now that has been changed to Sikh sources claim... Body counts offered by the Indian government are now the only places were there are point of view problems, because last time I checked these body count statistics were listed as undisputed facts. BTW just about every problem in the article can be fixed by simply inserting Sikh's claim into the mix, because when this is done, the whole article becomes completely verifiable because I have looked into it, and just about everything in the article is consistently given in Sikh accounts. It is a very accurate reflection of the Sikh point of view, its problem being that it states these points of view as indisputable facts. Some of the wording can be changed to a more neutral tone as well, but if point of fact the Sikhs did have a disperportionate casualty rate in that conflict so the article in that respect is factually correct. Thanks for pointing out that problem, but the thing is that I am not really sure we have made a good faith effort to discuss with the author and try and fix all the point of view problems with the article. For this reason alone the nomination should fail as it is in clear violation of WP:BEFORE TeamQuaternion (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or userfy very, very well sourced. It can be reworked and rewritten into a decent article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite -- This is a substantial and well-sourced article, but with a POV title and perhaps some POV content . The primary subject is an internal conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government. It is clearly written from a Sikh POV, but I see no evidence of a holocaust in the sense applied to the Jewish holocasut in WWII. The first pertion deals with pre-1984 Sikh grievances: I am not clear as to their relevance. The long paragraphs on the principal participants do not belong: the WP method of dealing with the need for these is to provide a short paragraph with a "main" template linking to the bio-article on the person. I do not know whether there is another articles on the subject to merge this with. If there is not, it should be given a series of tags, indicating the problems with it. It is a great pity when a substantial article such as this is deleted when what it needs is pruning, converting to NPOV, and generally sorting out. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that First Sikh Holocaust and Second Sikh Holocaust are now redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, rewrite and merge with 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency: "Third Sikh Holocaust" may be an OR. Other OR too: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is vaguely analogous to the attack in Amritsar. Heavy one-sided POV. Inappropriate tone, like personal POV essay:"The situation has changed some since the terrible days of Indira Gandhi. A Sikh is now Prime Minister of India and Sikh culture and commentary is readily available worldwide on the internet. But Punjab remains without a capital, many farmers without adequate water, and India remains a country of great hope, great challenges and great illusions.As the motto of the Indian republic says, Satyameva Jayate – “Truth Alone Shall Triumph”." BUT BENEATH THE POV, LAY BURIED SOME WELL-REFERENCED FACTS. Khushwant Singh for eg. is a very notable author. " Oxford University Press", University of Pennsylvania Press are noatble publishers. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted to keep), some people in this discussion may have a big advantage over me, because before I looked at this ADF proposal I did not know anything about this history. Ghallooghaaraa is the Sikh word for Holocaust, or so the article claims. ~~This should be verified by checking with a Sikh English dictionary, but the factual nature of the article is not really being challenged.~~ The author has verified this with a citation to a Sikh English dictionary, giving the exact page number where it is stated that Ghallooghaaraa is literally translated as holocaust. It would seem to me that the Sikh name for the event is an appropriate title, for an in depth coverage of these events from a Sikh point of view. The article documents with well over 160 sources and growing the verifiable and notable point of view of the Sikh community on the history of these events. There is really nothing wrong with an in depth article on a point of view, especially a notable one, as long as it says that it is from the Sikh point of view. As I see it, if the so called neutral articles mentioned don't provide some degree of coverage to the Sikh point of view, and link to this article, then the real problem is with the neutrality of these articles and not with this article on the Sikh point of view. A problem with merging the entire article with 160 citations into a main article with only 26 citations, including all the facts documented in the sources would be that then the main neutral article would become out of balance containing many more cited sources that support the Sikh point of view.TeamQuaternion (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you will have to read through all of the 160 citations first, and ensure that they are not being quoted or referred to selectively or out of context. Best of luck. Imc (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete while i sympathize with anyone who would like to rescue poorly written articles, and i have attempted to rescue some myself, i really cannot imagine this article passing deletion review with a "hey, why not just clean up". i believe in eventualism, but i also think articles need to stand as they are, maybe poorly sourced, maybe incomplete, but overall encyclopedic. this is so poorly written and pov, it needs to go. whoever wants to rescue it, please, just copy it to your sandbox and rewrite, and then recreate under a different name. i admit the references look good, but that may be all thats salvageable. the world can wait for this to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoteAs per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD a point of view problem is an extremely poor reason to place an ADF tag on an article and a much better approach is to improve the article. I have fixed a few of the more glaring style errors in the article and plan of fixing a few more, so since many of the WP:NPOV problems have been fixed, maybe the key issue is that this article is very verifiable as per guidline WP:V with 160 citations and also very notable as per WP:N, seems like nobody has disputed these facts, and since this is not a vote this ADF should be rejected.TeamQuaternion(talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree with you. Even an article as slanted as this one can usually be redeemed with enough elbow grease. But that is not the case here. The events this article describes are already covered in our articles about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and the Punjab insurgency, thus rendering a rewrite unnecessarily redundant.
Most importantly, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is a shock term intended to conjure images of Nazi concentration camps and fascist crackdowns. When we use the word "Holocaust" to name the events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, or when we use the term "genocide" to name the events in Rwanda in 1993-1994, we do so not as a rallying cry against racism or crimes against humanity but because that's what they are called by neutral and unbiased scholars and historians. Even neo-Nazis call the Holocaust "the Holocaust". As near as I can tell, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is not used by any scholar, not even in one of the 130+ citations provided by the article's author.
The only usages other than this article where I have found the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" come from Sikh websites railing against the crimes this article describes. That is hardly a neutral basis for such a complex topic. As such, we should move the salvageable content into the three articles I linked earlier and delete the remaining POV-filled detritus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note OK just a guess here, but my guess is that some of my older Jewish relatives would find this stuff extremely offensive, and think it was trivializing the holocaust. Also I am sure that Hindu people are not happy about being compared to Nazis? By the same token check out this link"

http://sikhtoons.com/HailIndia.html

My point being that an article on the Sikh point of view about the events of 1984 should not be stated as fact, but it should exist, because the fact that elements within the Sikh community use rhetoric like this is a verifiable fact. What is debated in an ADF is the topic of an article. I agree that it should be mentioned that this is an emotionally charged term used by only members on one side of the account.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE. The only reference for the term "Third Holocaust" (ref 1) is a dictionary that says Ghalooghara translates to Holocaust or a few other words. The article clearly fails reliable source verifiability for its core. While there are some RS refs included, they aren't germane to the title, rather they contribute to a synthesis, putting forward this fringe theory. That Wikipedia is not a soapbox is another policy vio. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also lacks RS. SBC-YPR (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-point of view fork issue {{User wikipedia/WikiDragon}} Deleting an article based on it having a point of view problems is one of the worst arguments for deletion I can think of. Probably the very worst example of an WP:OTHERCRAP argument is to try and justify deleting an article based on a claim that it is a point of view fork. This topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V it has over 160 references some of them from very reputable and non-partisan sources. That is not really nice of you to call the Sikhs that don't agree with Indian main stream media a fringe group, but even if they are, they are certainly a notable fringe group. Basically a point of view fork argument is that since some allegedly non-bias other article does not provide sufficient coverage of a subject, then an in depth coverage of the same topic needs to be deleted. Nonsense, lets stick to the issue and forget about WP:OTHERCRAP, better yet, since you have now awakened a sleeping dragon, I am headed right over to the article you claim is so unbias, and add in all the references that people suggest should be merged into that article, and place a link to the main article on the point of view expressed by some Sikhs. The sad thing is that this will mean that over 160 references are going to probably start to toggle in and out of that article. At least that will thwart your plan to get this content out of wikipedia edit history, unless people next advocating that article as well. Anyway, everybody please try and calm down and have a nice day. I believe that many of you are men of good faith who just disagree with the point of view of some of the Sikhs, but I don't think it is reasonable to exclude it. The other good news, is that all of the named point of view problems with the article have now been fixed. Making a sweeping claim about an article having a point of view fork problem is a fallacy under WP:JUSTAPOLICY in this case because it really does not apply when two articles are bias, and also fails by WP:ONLYESSAY. Also I think in an argument we need to say if we are Sikh Hindu or other. I have been clicking and visiting a lot of user pages, and there are many Hindus or at least Indian nationals. Me I am mostly Irish and German with some Jewish relatives as well. I have nothing personally against either Hindus or Sikhs and did not know anything about this issue until I clicked into it because I monitor articles for deletion.TeamQuaternion (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be better off understanding Wikipedia policies including those on reliable sources before you go on arguing about the 160 references. The fact that the only reliable sources in those 160 don't support the concept of a holocaust is the main point here. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - commentUser:SpacemanSpiff I notice you are a native Hindi speaker, nothing wrong with that, but people should name their partisanship in these types of heated discussions. The notable fact is what the Sikhs are claiming something. You make a great point, that their point of view is disputed. I agree that this fact should be included in the article. However the fact that they are making these claims is a little harder to dispute, my own research verifies that they are making these claimsWP:IKNOWIT/WP:JUSTAand that stating something I know to be a fact is not relevant and not really appropriate here, because they are a result of my recent inquiry into the subject. My lack of understanding of guides is not really relevant per WP:ADHOM, but thank you for the advice.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rescope to discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" in the apparently unlikely event that there is sufficient material - there seems no need for the content of this article to focus on the events of 1984, since we have extensive (and hopefully rather better) coverage of that elsewhere. Discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" itself also belongs in those other articles. However, if that discussion of the term becomes too extensive, then this article location would be (possibly minus the "1984") the wisest choice for a sub-article on the term to be branched out. The current situations appears to me to be an unacceptable POV-fork. TheGrappler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a POV version of another well written and more neutral article:[1984 anti-Sikh riots]. --Deepak D'Souza 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Legend (Amanda Lear album)

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Mint Records). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2009 (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, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Carosello). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Infrastructure}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Von Dusen}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)}}