Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:03, 18 September 2009

< 17 September	19 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asset voting

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

Delete. non-notable. neologism. original research. article created by a banned user (Sarsaparilla). Cordyceps2009 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because the sources simply don't check out. Appears to be WP:OR Chzz ► 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a good target can be found Merge otherwise Delete this orphan article. -- allen四names 15:51, 20 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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devamrita Swami

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

Non notable Iskcon swami. Authorship of a book is not a sufficient grounds for inclusion. Wikid ^as© 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:23, 18 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) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one deserves a keep. Devamrita Swami has received significant coverage in this documentary and some coverage in the US media in the 1980s (in New York Times for example), when he was the president of New Vrindavan Hare Krishna community. Also he's one of the few senior leaders in the Hare Krishna movement, where he is a sannyasi, a diksa guru and a member of the Governing Body Commission.--Gaura79 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Absence of WP:RS to support any claims on notability under WP:V. Appears to be a self promotional article. Wikid ^as© 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above !vote of nominator struck, as it duplicates deletion statement. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:58, 30 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. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117

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

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 18 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) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable in being one of the only (if not the only) combat flight simulator for linux, also has coverage here--UltraMagnus (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like WP:Advertising material and is happypengunin really a reliable website to cite? --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the Happypenguin directory entry is generated through user submissions, it can't be considered independent or reliable. I also don't buy the "one of the only..." argument: What if I were to make another Linux Tron light cycle game? There's only one other to my knowledge. Does that get me a WP article? No. Marasmusine (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do the interwikis count for anything? --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately their references: [1][2][3][4][5] are not reliable sources (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I meant the mere presence of the interwikis (assuming the interwiki articles are not complete garbage in themselves) --Mokhov (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please userfy to me as a subpage if deleted. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper strong delete. Interwikis should not be cited as sources, ever. JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far nobody cited interwikis as sources. --Mokhov (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Source Forge's very reliable download stats, and older version of this software received 86,763 downloads on Fri Jun 25 2004. So at least that many people have seen it. Sounds notable enough for me. Wikipedia isn't running out of space, and if you don't like it, you aren't going to find it anyway, unless you just like searching for things you dislike and wish to destroy. No general vote has ever been done on guidelines, so I just ignore them as the policy ignore all rules says to do, and use common sense. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOLOLOL. Did you just say, and I'm paraphrasing, "Keep due to download statistics, and IAR"??? Really????? Come on now. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think I am going to side up with DreamFocus on this for the mentioned reasons. (I still hold on to my comment above.) --Mokhov (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Does not even come close to notability as the single reliable source (about.com) is a lightweight. There is no material to build an article with, and no need for WP to replicate a thousand software databases by providing a couple of lines of text about GL-117. Someone another 21:51, 30 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. NW (Talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celemony

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

DELETE. This software company is not evidently notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 20 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) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists one independent RS (Macworld) and that is almost verbatim copy of a press release. Miami33139 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Melodyne is together with Auto-Tune market-leading audio-software tools for pitch-correction (much used and much debated). The article may however need upgrading. Gsoler (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard a good bit about Melodyne recently from friends and the net. I'm not very informed about it, which is why I looked it up- and saw this tag. I think it's fair to say it's a pretty prevalent topic right now. There were literally hundreds of people referring to it in the comments on blogs I looked at, usually in connection with Auto-Tune. From what I've gathered, the poster above me seems to be correct in that it's one of a couple of leading programs used to fix pitch in singers' voices for a more professional sound. The article seems to have issues with sourcing and may have been written by someone within Celemony, but it warrants fixing, not deletion. Here's an idea- change the article name to "Melodyne", similar to Auto-Tune's page.--Thecitrusking (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Thecitrusking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Long and short scales. — Jake Wartenberg 02:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milliard

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

A misplaced dictionaric article. Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDIC (nothing here beyond definition and etymology) - but perhaps we need to check if any of it could be usefully Transwikid to Wiktionary, to enchance their article? Chzz ► 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - much more extensive than a dictionary definition. Most of the information in the article does not and should not belong in Wiktionary. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Long and short scales.--Chris Johnson (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new section within 1,000,000,000 (number) or Long and short scales, leaving a redirect. It's longer and has more information than a Wikitionary article, but doesn't need it's own article. It's just an alternate long scale name for billion. Neil Clancy 18:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1,000,000,000 (number), which is where fr.wikipedia puts it. 192.225.128.3 (talk) 19:26, 21 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. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment theft

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

I believe the subject of the article may at some point meet the guidelines for notability. At the present time, the article has no reliable sources to verify most of the claims contained. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. It also seems to straddle the line of synthesis and original research. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be deleted.... Nothing importance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.22.242 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)—110.37.22.242 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete original research, lacks any references to appropriate reliable sources. Yes, perhaps an article could be written, but there's nothing at all here to salvage Chzz ► 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and reviseDelete Nothing here worth salvaging, since it is based on Japan only. I could definitely find hundreds or thousands of news articles about construction equipment theft, such as [6], [7] and [8]. but is it encyclopedic to have separate articles on theft of every kind of thing that exists? Auto theft has specialized law enforcement departments, and special laws. Construction equipment redirects to the odd title Engineering vehicle. (If I work as an engineer, is my car an "engineering vehicle?"). In that article, there could be a section created on their theft. They can be very expensive, and do great damage if sent rambling by a vandal or if used by a thief to break into something. The content here ~~is not really needed for that purpose.~~ can be revised and extended. Sources do exist on the topic: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Edison (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't really be kept as is, because the sources do not match the information contained in the article. If Edison is going to volunteer to edit this article in the direction of having even a few properly sourced, reliable statements, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination... which wasn't based on notability, but rather on being original research and/or synthesis. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:55, 21 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 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does one specific type of theft deserve it's own article? Are we next going to create car stereo theft or go-kart theft next? I'm sure there are many more sources for these than for construction equipment... I think the content of this article is better suited to a sub-section of motor vehicle theft or construction equipment... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly different kinds of theft create different issues for society, which might deserve treatment in an encyclopedic way. Construction equipment theft might (for example) raise issues of public safety, or it might lead to more costly or inferior construction, or it might feed a black market for parts, or what have you. Demographics and sociology of different types of theft would also be interesting, as would police methods. I think a *lot* of types of theft could deserve an article. Gruntler (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally typed in "Delete", thinking this subject would be very difficult to source. But a Google search for "construction equipment" + theft turns up this online bulletin board [13], and this "Builders tell how to fight on-site construction theft", and this [14] and the interesting fact that "Nearly 40 percent of all construction and agricultural equipment theft occurs in just five states, according to a report released today by the National Equipment Register (NER), a database company established to reduce heavy-equipment theft rates and increase recoveries of stolen equipment." [15]. For what it's worth, Lo-Jack (maker of anti-theft products) calls this "a problem that costs construction companies up to $1 billion per year in lost assets" [16] (actually, it appears more reliable sources say the same thing); Google News archives search [17] shows this source from the UK [18]; and this [19]. If sourcing exists to create a good article on a subject that otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's not up to us to refuse it space in the encyclopedia. Apparently there's a lot of information out there from reliable sources, so let's keep the page with an improvement tag until somebody adds to it. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently the article needs a ton of work, but "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Gruntler (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a ton of work is an understatement. The entire article needs to be re-written from the ground up. I doubt a single statement could be kept as is. Keeping it, without a volunteer to fix it, would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. We call them "stubs". I'll put in 10 minutes of work into it. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs have the same guidelines as regular articles. Wikipedia does not allow introduction of improperly sourced material, regardless of the notability of the subject. Removing all of the improperly sourced statements would have left a blank article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Term seems to come up at doj, only one matches exactly but many of these seem relevant, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ausdoj.gov+%22construction+equipment%22+theft&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8 I haven't read the article but presumably it could be stubbed if really bad and leave some search links like this on talk page for a while. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related recent AFD to consider: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft --Milowent (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Authors above found plenty of sources and subject is clearly notable. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right. I bit the bullet and added to the article. (Despite a few similarities, this is very different from motor vehicle theft in several ways, by the way.) This is actually kind of interesting and could be expanded quite a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article needs a lot of improvement and citations, but is notable UltraMagnus (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination - Due to some hard work at completely re-writing the article by Gruntler and JohnWBarber, I'm now willing to withdraw the nomination. In response to some comments on the board, however, I'd like to remind everyone that this article wasn't nominated for notability issues, as I've mentioned several times. The article was nominated for being original research which was not sourced properly. Regards, and any admin may now close. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:47, 26 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) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Roland

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

fails WP:BIO and clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. also WP:ONEVENT applies here too. no significant coverage [20]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Alexis Roland maybe fails WP:ATHLETE, but there is some coverage in reliable sources and I think she passes WP:BIO. I found a large article in NYTimes and profile in Huck Magazine. SkiNet.com says about her: At 10 years old, Alexis is sponsored by major brands; she rides on a custom board; she has appeared in a number of snowboard films; and she is a fierce presence on the competition circuit. Warren Miller Entertainment has officially tagged this next generation athlete as one to watch. This is on the borderline of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NY Times other bits is enough WP:RS for me to think it passes WP:GNG. Chzz ► 21:38, 18 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 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in the NYT.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-403 (computer virus)

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

Probably a copyvio from the Probert encyclopedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/L2.HTM

The other interpretation, that they copied it from Wikipedia, seems unlikely, since this is written in the same format as all the other computer virus entries in the Probert encyclopedia.

More concerning, I couldn't find any sources, besides those based on Wikipedia or Probert, that this virus actually exists. HamburgerRadio (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A virus that infects command.com and damages the FAT. It's not surprising that the nom cannot find any sources on a DOS-era virus. While notability is not temporary, there's nothing to suggest that this one is different from any of the thousands of run-of-the-mill computer viruses. Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This virus is even less notable than Parchive, which also lacks in non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Tim Song. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Chzz ► 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee

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

An IP reverted my redirect of this article to Harvard College, which I treated as contesting the CSD tag that was applied prior to the redirect. I'm unable to find any third-party, published, reliable sources on this subject. Limited number of non-WP Ghits (all, as far as I can determine, are either trivial mentions or non-third-party sources), zero Gnews hit. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Tim Song (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG, completely irrelevant to anyone outside the university. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation, no coverage in third-party reliable sources. Hut 8.5 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent notability Chzz ► 21:38, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Final musician

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

Unsourced, not notable musical artist. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines (and yes, all of the above too) Chzz ► 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 20 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) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Manila Area earthquake prediction

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

The article is about a prediction not widely covered by reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Bluemask (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article based on a prediction? (And aslo per Wp:CRYSTAL as well.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictional prediction; not encycopaedic. Per WP:CRYSTAL, if we start writing articles about things that might happen, where do we stop? I suppose it might be possible to write something about "Earthquake preparadness in xxx", giving reliable sources showing preventative measures in anticipation of a quake, but - at the moment, the whole 'predicted deaths' etc is just original research. Chzz ► 17:38, 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 redirect to spitting. — Jake Wartenberg 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeking

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

This article lacks any basis whatsoever. Cutno (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to originate with -inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s The official dictionary of unofficial English, perhaps. Some of the exact text is all over the net, so may be copyvio, but it's hard to say who copied who. Anyway, it's WP:NEO and fails WP:NOTDIC (and WP:GNG). Chzz ► 04:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spitting. Ikip (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spitting. I've heard the term ages back, it's not exactly a neologism, but wikipedia is not a dictionary and this could be covered perfectly well within the context of the spitting article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's in the Urban Dictionary, it also is an antiquarian term for "jesting." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is my first time coming across the article but it seems to add to the stock of human knowledge of the reader. Rather encyclopedic. And re the 'redirect to spitting idea'. Have you read the spitting article? Lead states: "act of forcibly ejecting saliva or other substances from the mouth.". 'Gleeking' is mostly involuntary, and why I cant back that up with a source, it is something that can't be done on demand without a fair practice. Spitting however, is rather easy. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a word for Gleeking; It's called "Drooling". Cutno (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's something completely different personal attack removed. Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC). IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:11, 23 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 Robert Maday. Originally closed by User:Mixwell, reclosing to fix formatting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mayday

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

Lacking significant coverage to be verifiable as notable, as per WP:BIO and WP:V. Without additional sources, this would seem to fall under WP:NOT, specifically "News Reports". OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT Chzz ► 04:14, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dale Gregory

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

BLP totally devoid of reliable, verifiable sources seems to promote the subject's candidacy for political office (US Congressman from North Carolina's 10th Congressional district) and was created by an SPA with a probable COI and referenced to the subject (presumably via personal interaction)[21]. Need I also mention that Wikipedia is NOT a web host? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only no sources but I strongly suspect WP:COI as well. Eeekster (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As I mentionned previously I am not sure if no sources is grounds for deletion, but it does sound like a possible WP:AUTOBIO (if not at least WP:COI). With the amount of small information available (this unrelated court case is the only ref a quick google search turns up) and no references, it's hard to believe that there's any way that this could not be COI. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) has tagged this article as subject to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 (person), twice. I'm not sure A7 applies because the article asserts the subject is a candidate for US Congress. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing the issue with Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) on my talk page. CSD A7 is for articles with "no indication of notability." Running for congress would seem to never fit into that category, regardless of the outcome of this AfD discussion. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Yes, I have marked with a CSD. The individual has no GHits, no GNEWS, and the article is lacking references. Candidacy for a public office generally is not seen as an assertion of notability. All it takes is a filing fee and completion of paperwork. By the article's own admission, "He has yet to win the parties nomination and currently has competition for the position," and has only announced his intention to run. ttonyb (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite any policy, guideline, or precedent to support your position on candidacy for a public office? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sure, Item #3 OF WP:POLITICIAN and also from WP:CSD, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion. ttonyb (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll buy Item #3 OF WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll not revert your CSD nom unless I see sufficient sources. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No problem and thanks. Either way, it appears the article will not survive the AfD. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not agree with the CSD nomination, but I still can't find a single reliable source, despite attempting a rescue. I think AfD was the right place for this article, but I can also see the logic in the arguments made by Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs). At this point, I think we're splitting hairs over how to delete, but in the meantime, it gave the author of the article a chance to attempt to resolve the notability issues. I will userfy the information for the author's future reference in the event notability guidelines can be met. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN on the political end and WP:BIO otherwise. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for election posters. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability at present Chzz ► 21:42, 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 redirect to luxury box. — Jake Wartenberg 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private box

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

This article is about a nonnotable organization which fails WP:ORG as it hasn't been the subject discussion in reliable, third-party sources. The article also appears to be solely for the purposes of advertising, but doesn't appear to be speediable. Them From Space 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to original redirect to luxury box. Unnotable small business. Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect; otherwise it might be undone. Delete as non-notable org, per WP:ORG and WP:GNG Chzz ► 04:16, 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 closed as moot. Article has been already speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7) by User:Charles Matthews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Irvin

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

Despite claims of notability, I only found one or two articles on Gnews about her (several duplicates of the same article, however.) Gbooks turned up nothing. Gsearch turned up a few promotional articles about real estate investing, but nothing that justifies the notability claims the article makes, much less satisfies WP:NOT imho. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason stated. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:14, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Randall

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. No broader consequences, just a terrible murder. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, although poorly written, includes the cited information that investigation into the murder led to the censure of a major public hospital [22] for failing to take action regarding recognizable child abuse and to corrective action (in theory). Article may require retitling. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not biographical material. You say the article may need retitling, but what you are really talking about is something that would be discussed in an article on that hospital, which is much more than retitling. Dominic·t 02:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, more like an article on "Murder of Jessica Randall"; there are quite a few similar articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, though that article would seem to have some of the same issues as this one, in that there is little to establish historical significance aside from the tidbit about the hospital. In any case, my point was that you are proposing a new article on a different topic from this biographical one, so you aren't asking for a retitling at all. You don't need to vote at AfD to start an article. Dominic·t 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 20 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) 04:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Souhegan, North Carolina

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

No evidence of WP:Notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like some form of a nickname for a local farm/art studio, although Wikipedia is extremely open to all geography articles this one does not seem like the case. A GNIS query results in nothing, so my thoughts are delete. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh.... - Does look like there's some article that profiled the farm, but every old house/farm is not notable, even if an artist lives there. How about merging into Tyrrell County, North Carolina, unless article is fleshed out to show independent notability. Creator of article appears to be newbie and local to area discussed and shouldn't be discouraged.--Milowent (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a disambiguation article at Souhegan that has included for nearly four years the line "Souhegan, North Carolina, a community in Scuppernong, North Carolina". Agreed that geographical locations have wide berth, but then, if Souhegan, North Carolina, is a community, an article by this name should be about that community. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, glad you found that. I'll try to do a little more searching. If there is anything we can find that supports the existence of this as a community place name, it should be kept. --Milowent (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "Our State" article[23] - Souhegan there is only referred as the name of the farm, but that name must come from somewhere. Soughegan is also a variety of raspberry that got its name from an area in New Hampshire (which has a Souhegan river). I found an 1890 North Carolina Ag. Dept government publication from its "experimental" farm that says that Souhegan raspberries did well that year[24], but haven't found anything saying raspberries were grown in this location. Where else to go?--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no such place as "Souhegan, North Carolina". I see this as an attempt to piggyback in on the rule that inhabited communities are inherently notable. However, from the article, "Souhegan is the name of a farm in Tyrrell County, North Carolina and residence of sculptor artist, Tom Kilian." Lots of people like to give a name to their farm or their estate, but I don't think this would pass as "Tom Kilian's Home, NC". Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info It says right here on the artist's website that location of his farm is Columbia, North Carolina. Considering as well that there are no supporting WP:GHITS for "Souhegan, North Caroina", I submit that it isn't a geographic location at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above investigations, it would appear to be impossible to write a referenced article on this subject Chzz ► 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, read through this article in all it's variations and nothing suggests any notability even the references and citations are moot at best RichardLowther (talk) 14:36, 20 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 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sana-Software

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

Contested PROD. Notability not established, possible COI editor. Article creator (User:SanaSoftware, definitely a COI, already indef-blocked for username vio) may be the same user as User:Brambo123, who started editing when the creator was blocked. [flaming lawyer] 00:54, 18 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) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sourced to its own customers websites. That is not RS. Miami33139 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real indepth coverage, mainly passing mentions [25]. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete, a non-consumer tech business (develops .NET software platforms for e-commerce, e-learning, and web content management) blowing its own horn. The non-words "e-commerce" and "e-learning" should be grounds for speedy deletion per se, but any text containing them is sure to be obvious advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal language (logic)

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

Created as a POV fork of Formal language, after discussion at Talk:Formal_language did not support the creator's opinions about article content. I asked about this being a POV fork at User_talk:Gregbard#Formal_language_(logic) before nominating.

This is a POV fork because:

There are no sources that say that formal languages "in logic" are any different than formal languages in computer science and mathematics. The sources from mathematics listed in the article are actually from mathematical logic.

Nor is there sufficient agreed-upon material in the formal language article itself to warrant a split because of length.

Per WP:POV fork,

"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete misunderstanding of what a POV fork is' -- If for instance the claim was that the article is written from a logicist, or diatheistic POV, that would be a legitimate claim. However, Arthur, CBM, and many others in the math department have repeatedly complained about a "pro-philosophy" or ""philosophical logic" POV. PLEASE LET ME CORRECT THIS. There is no such thing as a "pro-philosophy" POV. Just covering the philosophical content, is not itself POV (obviously this would be insane, since all articles under WP:PHILO's scope would be POV). One of the outcomes of this nomination should be to bring an end to the spurious claims of "POV". It really is a fundamental misunderstanding that acts as a big smokescreen to confuse the issue. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The "split" (not fork) is necessary, due to the repeated deletion of material along stark interdisciplinary lines. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, without merge, to the parent article). The "theory" sections are not part of "formal language" as used in logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question I've read this article carefully, and I don't see how the (more vague) definition given in it differs from that at formal language. Furthermore, most applications listed are the same in both articles. I saw on Talk:formal language that there was some disagreement over the inclusion of the image that's shown in this article, because "well-formed formulas" and theorems are not commonly define for formal languages outside Logic; as far as I can tell that image could be placed in a section at formal language instead of placing it at the top of the article. Is there anything else that beckons for a separate article? Pcap ping 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the definition given in formal language (logic) is more precise not more vague, it is, however more general and therefore more useful for describing logic, math and computers at the same time. It seems that you agree with me that the content having to do with formal languages as used in logic should never have been repeatedly deleted from the original article. There are many statements of truth made in the (logic) article which had been deleted from the original. It is not acceptable. Perhaps there could be a merge (a good complete merge), which I would support. However, I believe it will continue to be a mess which can be avoided by splitting. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a language that meets the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language? Pcap ping 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There really should only be one article, but it should contain some of the content from the forked article. I would be opposed to deleting without covering this material. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of thing can be argued on the talk page. The information in the fork is covered elsewhere, as appropriate for the topics there. The reason that the fork is inappropriate is exactly that it was created because the author was unable to convince anyone else (via citations, sound arguments, or other means) that the material actually belongs in an article on formal languages, rather than articles on formal systems, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair characterization. Hunter's Metalogic is a reliable source. Even Arthur agrees that it is reliable, but just thinks it belongs on the other side of the street. However when one tries to move to the other side of the street it isn't allowed. This is plain wrong. You can't have it both ways. Cover the material about formal languages, including the fact that a formal language is an idea, that the marks on the page are a token of the idea, etcetera. Otherwise there is no right to complain. I am pretty sure I have determined that none of you guys cares that a formal language is an "idea," (and other facts) so you should be quite grateful to make the split. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter wrote a book on ~~philosophical logic~~ metalogic addressed to non-mathematicians; see the preface fo his book (edited: 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)). With that audience in mind, he was less formal. That does not make his idea of a formal language different. Please see page 4 in his book. He clearly refers to an alphabet just like formal language does. You still haven't replied to my question above... Pcap ping 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with me that the idea is not different, and that there should be one comprehensive article. However, the group is not willing to allow a comprehensive article. Hunter's language is more precise on most of the terms being used, and when it is not he says so specifically (see effective method). This actually is the appropriate text to use for clear, precise language, so I have to object to the characterization. Analytic philosophers, and philosophical logicians set out to identify the clearest language as the fundamental job they do. You absolutely should be using Hunter's language over language used in a math text which is more informal (in the sense used in the above paragraph.) I'm sorry, but that is the academic and intellectual reality. It is the proper role of logicians to be telling mathematicians about the fundamentals. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate article because you can't get to a consensus on the presentation of the same concept is treading WP:POINT. Immediately changing dozens of links with WP:AWB to point to your favorite presentation is also WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping 03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a bad attitude. AGF. No it isn't "point" or "disruption". It's diligence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a POV fork per se but it certainly is a useless fork. It's the same content with a somewhat different take on the whole thing. But I've read it carefully (I am competent to do so if anyone cares) and it's quite simply redundant. One can write formula instead of word but it's still a finite sequence of symbols (or should I say finite sequence of letters?) The article is also poorly written and unnecessarily confusing. The second and third sentences seem particularly devoid of meaning. Simply saying "a formal language is a set of strings" would carry the same precise idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the problem here is that very often the distinctions that philosophers make appear to be "devoid of meaning", especially in logic, and including when they are actually quite insightful. ("An object is the same as itself") I have a particular interest in preserving the 2nd and third sentences (which are ones which had been deleted from formal language). These are statements which tell us something fundamental about formal languages, and if you do not care to address them, then a split is justified. If you just take the attitude that you don't care then you will never see a need to split the article. I don't care if you care, but do not remove content that others care about (as has been demonstrated by its presence in a reliable text on the subject). With respect, your criticism amounts to a subjective opinion. And no, it is not precisely the same as you have characterized. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a distinction that logicians or philosophers make. Take the third sentence: it's a way to say "a formal language is a set" without using the word "set". It might prove useful if one is worried about the audience being unfamiliar with the notion but it doesn't convey anything else. It reminds me of the good ol' days of my undergrad studies. The math department's logician had retired and for a couple of years the only undergrad logic course was given in the philosophy department. While the textbook said things like "a formal language is a set", the teacher spent significant time explaining that idea for the philosophy department students. Not because the sentence was imprecise but because she wanted to make sure they got the concept. Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep is it notable? yes. is it substantive different? yes. is it better than the article it split from? clearly yes. the original article should be deleted, this one should be kept if there is a choice between the two, otherwise, both should exist. --Buridan (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voice of reason as usual. Thank goodness for you. Be well.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "notable" mean in this context? Pichpich (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough pandering to WP:RANDYs who cannot even explain how the notions differ but invoke WP:NPOV. I will strike this and change my vote if you can answer my question about the differences between these notions I asked above. Pcap ping 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the concept that is different. However, there are obviously many areas being covered in the new article which are not in the old. Furthermore, there is hostility toward such coverage. Choose one or the other. If it's deleted then all of that content is going to be merged into the original.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here are edited according to WP:CONSENSUS. Willingly creating a WP:CFORK and then demanding in exchange for its deletion that your idiosyncratic misunderstandings of the topic be included in the original article is WP:DISRUPTION. Pcap ping 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about a "disruption" is that there actually has to be something legitimate going on to disrupt... otherwise its an intervention. The whole thing helps to avoid disruption. I don't have any misunderstanding that you have demonstrated, so I will have to identify this as more high rhetoric and bad attitude. The content I am advocating is not idiosyncratic at all, having been addressed by Carnap, Tarski and Quine. Just stop it. Seriously. Call the cops why don't you?! What a drama queen. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. The terms are the same and should be discussed in the same article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, oppose merge if that's not clear. The material is not in good condition and would be better rewritten. Like Hermel, below, I have not yet formed an opinion on the proper mix of content at Formal language, but this material as written is not suitable for a merge. Generally speaking, I welcome the addition of this sort of information; without fully understanding the objections in Talk:Formal language I can't say much more. Perhaps I will contribute to this article in the future to add more logic content to Formal language. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The objections to User:Gregbard's approach can be best summarized by quoting this analogy due to User:Hans Adler, which is over a year old (yes, the POV pushing has been going on for that long):

“

I have only now become aware of this exchange. To make clear how ridiculous it is, let's suppose an editor has hijacked the article automobile and now it mainly talks about tractors, the only kind of automobile that this editor knows about, and it puts particular emphasis on ploughing. Then we could have an exchange like the following:

I am unhappy to see the article in its present state. There have been many changes that are specific to agriculture; the information provided is useful, but is mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general. Perhaps make a separate section about automobiles in agriculture?

I sympathize with having an article seemingly taken over. I am not really aware of the applications of automobiles in human transport, etc. However, I would assume that the reason that there exist applications in freight traffic, human transport, and anywhere else is because we can use a tractor as a tool for pulling cargo carts.

I am curious about the claim "mistakenly presented as if it pertains to automobiles in general." Is there something there that is not true generally of automobiles? It seems to me that these aspects are the most general aspects, while applications in human transport are more specific. I think in all cases the applications can be expressed in terms of the agricultural aspects of the topic. I would like to see all of these aspects covered. I would like to see an interdisciplinary coverage of the topic.

There seem to be no bounds to Gregbard's overestimation of his own knowledge. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

- - See also this "OMG" thread by some unfortunate newbie who stumbled onto the talk page. Pcap ping 10:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm commenting out the RfC tag. AfD lasts 7 days. RfC lasts 30 days. If RfC is necessary, please use the article talk page, etc., not AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - intentional content fork which describes the same concept as the original article. Creating a content fork is not an acceptable way of addressing a content debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a POV fork, and an example of why we take POV forks to be unacceptable. The subject matter of formal languages is quite well-defined. If discussions of topic X related to formal languages doesn't belong or fit in formal language, it can be discussed in an article on X, from all aspects. But it really is not possible to argue for an article simply for some different perspective on formal languages as such. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly a POV fork. A rather lengthy discussion about how much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article was started at 23 May 2008 in Talk:Formal_language/Archive_1#Mathematical_logic_has_crept_in_and_taken_over. In the course of that discussion, the creator of this article already had proposed to start a separate article about Formal language (logic), which was also discussed. See the archived discussion. Here, I do not want to imply anything about the question "How much weight should be given to logical concepts in the formal language article?". I just want to make the point that this is a POV fork.Hermel (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I actually don't entirely understand that discussion and certainly haven't formed a conclusion; I only feel that this article is an unacceptable fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. A formal language is the same in all the contexts that have been mentioned. It is a set of strings drawn from an alphabet. Taemyr (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. I also agree with Pichpich concerning the "poorly written" and "needlessly confusing" part. Huon (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork (Not quite convinced about the POV part). The lead phrase is fundamentally wrong, and of course there cannot be a construct which will satisfy the definition of formal language (logic), but not that of formal language. There is a special viewpoint from which logicans view formal languages. It differs somewhat (in wording) from the mathematical point of view, it differs widely from the linguistic point of view. But this difference must necessarily be pointed out in the main article, not in some half-copied, half-invented fork split from it. --Pgallert (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Logicians use formal languages in two different ways, depending on context: (1) In the standard sense when working in areas close to computer science. (2) In a perhaps slightly more restrictive but ill-defined sense when using them to define the syntax of languages. For (1) a separate article makes no sense at all. For (2) we can't write a separate article because this definition is almost never made explicit. I have never seen an author make (2) explicit, but I would expect that they either use the same definition as (1) or ad hoc definitions that depend more on the author's didactic approach and the precise intended application than anything else, and that any agreement in this area between different authors is the result of accident or plagiarism.

For (1) a separate article is completely inappropriate because the distinction logic/not logic makes no sense. For (2) a separate article is inappropriate because the topic is not notable at all. Far from having sources that focus on the topic itself (as required by WP:N), we can't even tell whether any serious author actually intends to make such a difference, as opposed to glossing over potential difficulties for non-mathematicians by means of an imprecise, intuitive approach. Hans Adler 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main article, or delete. POV forking is not an approved method to deal with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merging The main article does have a section of appropriate WP:WEIGHT, i.e. Formal language#Formal systems. As you can see, that section defers details to formal system, which is the proper place to discuss most of the issues in the article being discussed for deletion here. In fact this AfD'd article has an obscured form of the definition from formal language, but the body is essentially a duplication of the contents from formal system. Most of the article's body are summaries of other articles with {{main}} tags. So, I don't see what's useful here to merge anywhere... Pcap ping 12:55, 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 delete. No prejudice against later recreation. The pianist is still at the beginning of the career so things may change considerably. Tone 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Kerstens

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

Contested speedy deletion with some claim of importance as there is also an article in the Dutch wiki, both unsourced, brought here for further assessment after 2 days in the speedy queue. Delete unless reliable independent in-depth sources can be found. Tikiwont (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood, I am working on gathering/adding the required sources --H9000 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if the creator wishes to keep searching for sources, but I could find only one news source[26], and that appears to be just a mention on a list. pablo_hablo. 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that support the accuracy and facts. The 6th reference supports the notability of the artist. --H9000 (talk) 12:11, 13 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 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources "support the accuracy and facts", but all of it are only trivial mentions. Vera Kerstens doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing significant in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She has received coverage in a reliable source of an international tour (one of many tours she has been on) and won thé major dutch award for classical music performance. I figured that'd meet the WP:MUSICBIO (but am often mistaken). --H9000 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources mostly are passing mentions, one is a Wikipedia self-reference and doesn't say all it's supposed to say. Huon (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I be as bold to suggest instead of deleting the page because of said lack of in-depth sources, using refimprove and allow the article to be improved in time? --H9000 (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the Princess Christina Competition is not a "major music competition" as required for notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and she has no other claim to notability except a passing mention in a concert announcement. That's unlikely to change if we tag the article. Furthermore, the majority of the article's current content, including such basic details as her birthdate, is not supported by sources and probably unverifiable. If the article gets deleted now, it may be recreated once Kerstens has become more notable and better sources are available. Huon (talk) 07:31, 22 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) 10:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Festival du nord de la culture urbaine

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

Probably not notable yet, since the first event hasn't even occurred yet and I can't find WP:GHITS for {"festival du nord" maroc} or { "festival du nord" "culture urbaine" } or { festival2nord }. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I just realized that the article is a promotion by the creator of the event, so I just requested speedy deletion. I'll report back here if that's denied. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, a promotion of a nonnotable event which even did not happen yet. Laudak (talk) 22:32, 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) 00:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A speedy deletion request (CSD G11) for this article was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, non-notable. The conflict of interest doesn't help, either. Huon (talk) 14:33, 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. NW (Talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Parole

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009. Gsearches turn up nothing aside from cursory mentions in PR statements. I conclude this executive fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Randy Parole and Randy J. Parole. No significant coverage in reliable sources asserting notability. Location (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 23:04, 21 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) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the individual meets the threshold of notability listed at WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete it, McDonalds and netflix talk about themselves on this too doesn't that mean they are advertising themselves? don't be hypocritical—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Reply - Other stuff exists isn't a viable keep argument. If you want your article kept, read WP:BIO then update the Randy Parole article to meet that notability guideline by using reliable sources to provide verifiability. Also, regarding the comparisons you mentioned ... this is an article about a person, not a company - so the notability guidelines are slightly different - but there are still guidelines. The Netflix and McDonalds articles meet the notability guideline of WP:CORP. Meanwhile, the Randy Parole article does not currently seem to meet the notability guideline of WP:BIO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply you guys are total snobs get over yourselves this is public domain and he has a right to be on here if he wishes. its not like its graffiti or porn, he is a member of a business community and wants to be mentioned. If Bill gates gets to be on here then why not randy Parole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheiseus (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 September 2009
    - Comment - You were already directed to WP:BIO. Please read it. Randy Parole does not seem to currently meet that notability guideline - while the Bill Gates article that you mentioned does show he is notable per the threshold outlined in that guideline. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not public domain. All contributions to it are under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a webhost for personal web pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 22 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) 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hardy

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to think serial killers, particularly those in the UK, are notable. His crimes pre-dated the internet, but he has received news coverage over 30 years later: [27][28][29]. Location (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:00, 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) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think in this case a separate page is suitable. Not only is he notable for multiple crime acts, the sources also have other reasons he could be considered notable, such as receiving such a long sentence. And (as Location says) he doesn't appear to have kept a low profile, even 30 years later he is still in news articles, and mentioned (presumably) in a national tv show. I also agree with Location's reasoning - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:28, 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. NW (Talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostaro

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

Unref article on non notable person, appears to be advertising Estragons (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: first 50 results on Google came up with little but IMDB (and that was with whom he had worked), a blank NY Times Movie article and fansites. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:22, 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, JForget 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ 50 hits is 50 hits... more than a regular unknown person gets atleast. I have heard of this person. Obvious keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale is a combination of WP:GHITS and WP:IKNOWIT. Please support your comment with an actual rationale please. NW (Talk) 19:15, 17 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 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per earlier statments and per overall notability and sources.--Judo112 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreeance with the Greek guy that this person is non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
Comment: not sure on notability but I did find this. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was curious about the Jon Stewart/David Letterman appearances. He didn't appear as a guest, but as a character in those fake man-in-the-street who will say whatever clips. I imagine he had less than 30 seconds of airtime on both shows combined. WP:BURDEN puts the effort to document this person on the author of the article. It hasn't been done. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Farm

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

Fails notablility, he is not notable outside of Youtube apart from a (minor) WP:BLP1E event where his farm was raided for environmental reasons. Article appears to be written by a fan, and several IPs have tried adding material inappropriate to WP:BLP, without reliable sources. Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has already been deleted before in an AfD. Martin451 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However (a) this content is not identical to the previously deleted content from 2007, and (b) the arguments in the prior AFD discussion in 2007 about non-Youtube sources clearly don't apply now. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTuber, he doesn't even have awards. Jeremjay 24 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems pretty non-notable to me. I should mention that I raised the BLP issues at the BLP noticeboard. The fact that the article about this relatively non-notable figure is also, it seems, going to become a magnet for BLP concerns tips the balance for me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Made it more than once to the top Youtube's video page and traditional media reported as well. Falls roughly into the same category as Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy is no Lisa Nova or iJustine. Although I know that his pedophile accusations are true (there is a mountain of evidence and observations to prove it, just visit This forum, I don't see how the guy will be notable until his "farm" is raided and he is arrested, as I can see the case getting lots of attention when the guy is brought down. Karrmann (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 20 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 Heralds of Unicron. — Jake Wartenberg 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hook, Line and Sinker (Transformers)

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

Non-notable characters. I found no reliable sources that show they are notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and trivial. Trio is an unlikely search term. --EEMIV (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These characters lack independent notability Chzz ► 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short lived characters that had no impact it would seem.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wherever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give an actual reason. Saying keep or merge isn't very helpful. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heralds of Unicron. Not major characters but significant enough for a short description in the general article about minions of Unicron. --Polaron | Talk 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in agreement with Poleron. -- allen四names 18:12, 20 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) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Waldriff

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply playing Jackie Kennedy or acting with famous actors does not equate to notable. hardly anything in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:08, 15 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) 00:09, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Sprayberry

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly any third party coverage [31]. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 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) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as currently failing WP:BIO amd WP:GNG. Neither of the currently used sources is acceptable to Wikipedia... an IMBD profile and one on Episodeworld. Coverage in reliable sources is only her name in connection with a role [32]... nothing more. While yes, she is a cute child actress and may be destined for bigger things, it will be best to wait until she either gets some significant roles or gets greater coverage in sources, or both. Right now, its just not enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lambert (musician)

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. I could only find one local story/item about his release party and that doesn't make a person notable. Clubmarx (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related album page:

delete no notability shown, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A7. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 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) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 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 no consensus. MuZemike 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Off Campus

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

Non-notable student organization of the University of Chicago. Although they have produced a bunch of people who have worked for famous things, notability is not inherited. No significant third-party coverage; ghits give resumes of former actors in Off-off, and GBooks yields a few psychology books by the same author that treat it for a couple pages as an example of creative teamwork, but nothing that seems like it wouldn't apply to any other professional/semi-professional improv group. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see hits on google news archive to chicago and papers that appear to be on this group, many are pay to view. Article does need some citation added. -- [33] --Milowent (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you narrow it down to exclude sources from uchicago.edu and to include "improvisation" you get 14 results, most of which refer to a "50th anniversary of improv" suggesting that their main topic is Off-Off's predecessor organization, the Compass Players. [34] — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student improv groups will sometimes g-test favorably, but upon further research are largely non-notable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 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, JForget 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Off-Off Campus seems to mentioned in at least a couple biographies of "notable" people. While I don't know if the arguement is invalidated by the "notability is not inherited" arguement or not, on at least on a practical level, it would be convienient for those readers to have a wikilink back to an Off-Off Campus page to explain to them just what exactly that is. (Or they could do a quick g-search, whatever :P) Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily be taken care of in-sentence in a bio article(e.g., "Actor X started acting in Off-Off Campus, a comedy improvisation group at the University of Chicago). — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 18 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 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply lacks the sources to meet WP:ORG. Since many notable people have a university education, and since they are likely to have belonged to a range of clubs and societies, ergo most university clubs will be able to point to many notable alumni. Consequently, I don't think that there is any inherent notability unless it can be shown that membership of that club has significantly contributed to their future notability. Rather more importantly, the content fails the policy WP:V with unsourceable statements such as "and the group continues to build on the foundation he created. In addition to Off-Off's rich tradition,". TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Also much of the notability listed is inherited which is not enough to keep the article in its current state. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note re article improvements: I voted keep in the 1st listing of this AfD above. Apparently no one has tried to access the pay articles that seem to reference this group (the big chicago papers), but I went thru and added a number of UofC related publication cites (also, the Maroon, the primary student paper, seems to have at least one in-depth review each year of the group's shows but i did not cite all of those). In terms of notability, I have also discovered and added that this is the 2nd oldest college improv group in the country. I think the alumni who went on to individual notability is of some additional value for keeping as well, because its a common thread for each of them. --Milowent (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need some more sourcing and while I realize notability is not inherited, it does appear that a few famous people got their start there and just for completion sake it would be nice if those people's articles could link back to this one. I'll try to add some more sources tomorrow; hopefully, it will be enough to strengthen the article. Mathieas (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles on Wikipedia only if the topic is notable (and, in a few cases, if a subsection becomes too large for its article and gets split off), not "for completion sake". However, I gladly welcome (and encourage) you to find sources. — DroEsperanto (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of why there are articles on Wikipedia, thanks. Also, it looks like a lot of sources have already been added to the article. If folks still think this article is not notable on its own, perhaps a merge with the Compass Players article? From what I can determine from researching the Off-off Campus it looks like there is a line that connects the Compass Players, Second City and Off-off campus. It's an idea. Mathieas (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - While those sources are excellent for verifying information, they're really not independent enough to provide notability, since they're school publications. A merge might be appropriate, though. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, how "independent" do they need to be? Its seems hard to not accord them any value, as the primary sources that would cover this organization are going to be the media sources that cover the University of Chicago. The Maroon appears to be a significant student-run paper, its not beholden to any student groups. Also, the cite I found to the Chicago Time Out is not affiliated with UofC at all. Plus, w ecan tell via google news search that there have been references to the group in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times; we just can't tell how significant because we can't access them, but that's also some evidence of notability; we shouldn't turn a blind eye to it. Some articles appear to discuss trips the group took to perform in Scotland. I did add a new cite to a 2000 NY Times article on this Auburn graduate, that has a graf referencing his start with this group. I know its not the world's best argument to point out that wikipedia is full of articles which could never get the amount of sourcing this one already has, but its true.(see, e.g., Fresh concepts, Erasable Inc., CHiPs Improv (somewhat similar as most sources are student paper, though not as many sources overall), etc.)--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:UNIGUIDE writes:

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by organizations—none of which should be written by any part of the union/organization/government or university itself. These sources may come from other universities or from the university press but never from the university which the group or organization is a part of.

That would seem to exclude the Maroon from use as a notability-establishing source, no matter how "significant" it is. This doesn't totally preclude all student groups from inclusion in Wikipedia, however: a recent AFD for University of Chicago Band ended in keep because quality sources were found. I have already stated my suspicion of the quality of the Google News sources: they all seem either completely irrelevant (e.g., "Jessica found on-campus housing at Georgia Tech too expansive, so she moved off-off campus") or give bare mentions (including the source you added, which includes only four sentences about Off-Off), or, from the abstracts and titles, seem to be about the Compass Players or some other group, very likely only mentioning Off-Off in passing. And, as you mention, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument for notability, especially when all the examples cited have notability tags on them.

As for the other sources you added, their mentions are inadequate for establishing notability: four brief sentences in the Chicago Time Out in a piece with a handful of other improv groups, and one passing sentence in the NYT article. A minor mention in a local paper and a passing reference isn't significant coverage.— DroEsperanto (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for linking to the WP:UNIGUIDE, that's useful info. It also says "Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability." So the Maroon doesn't help on notability under the guideline, I have to concede. On the google news sources, I wasn't including the Georgia Tech type hits in my thoughts.

Here are some of the ones i see:

Improv Theater Celebrates 50th Anniversary, Associated Press (July 5, 2005)(pay article; the 50th anniversary of improv in chicago is based on the continuum of the compass players through Off Off Campus -- its not a fifty year period unless you count Off Campus from 1986-2005; also it was Off Off Campus that performed at this 50 year show)
Seeds of improv sown at U. of C. // University to celebrate 50th anniversary of debut show, Chicago Sun Times (July 4, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
Everything points to a lot of fun for Compass event, Chicago Sun Times (July 1, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
Compass Co-Founder Returns to Chicago to Recreate the Birth of Improv Comedy 50 Years Ago, Business Wire (June 27, 2005) (pay article; same comment)
CAN MATH ON THE MIDWAY BE EXCITING THEATER? HERE'S `PROOF' Chicago Tribune (Dec. 13, 2000) (pay article, about David Auburn, we can tell Off Off is mentioned, don't know how much)
LIVING `PROOF' U. OF C. GRAD IS NOW HOTTEST PLAYWRIGHT ON BROADWAY AND PRIME CONTENDER FOR A PULITZER Chicago Tribune (Apr. 16, 2001) (Pay article, same as last one)
ECONOMICS PROF CRUNCHES NUMBERS TO COMEDIC EFFECT, Chicago Tribute (Nov. 13, 1998) (pay article, Auburn again)
The Right Equation ; A lifelong interest in theater and a casual interest in math add up to a playwright's dream for 'Proof' author David Auburn, Baltimore Sun (Feb. 25, 2002) (pay article; appears to be covered in another Auburn-based article)
The 'Proof' of Playwright's Talents Is in His New Work's Prizes; Theater * David Auburn's second full-length play has won some of drama's highest distinctions, Los Angeles Times (June 4, 2001) (pay article; auburn again)
Gridiron Show tops list of local follies, Chigago Sun-Times (May 18, 1990) (pay article, extent of coverage unknown)
Edinburgh or Bust, Troupes Vow, Chicago Sun-Times (July 28, 1995) (pay article, extent of coverage unknown, but appears to cover one of group's trips to Ediburgh)
Edinburgh bloodbath Fest hopefuls find competition withering, go home penniless, Chicago Tribute (Sept. 27, 1989) (pay article, same topic as last, for different trip)

So, I think we have a likely case here of "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" -- some of these articles, maybe most or all, don't have substantial coverage of the subject, but all have some coverage of it, which is some proof of notability, I think. I wonder if there is guidance somewhere about what to do when you know of the existence of articles that cover a subject, but no one has yet accessed them for inclusion.

Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists can be a useful argument for notability in some cases, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

So, that's why I think this crosses over into notability, excluding the university related sources. Hopefully my work of gathering these cites is not in vain and someone who has access to these archives will access them.--Milowent (talk) 13:40, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

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

Non-notable individual. A number mentions in church related articles; however, lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: If anything, it's the church that would be notable if sufficiently covered. Of the four references supplied, the first is trivial coverage, the second and third are about the church and not Hodges, and the fourth is about a separate organisation. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 22:56, 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the church, which actually is notable. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO; the church doesn't seem notable either, despite the dubious claim of "fastest growing church in the United States" from what may not be a reliable, third party source. Altairisfar _talk 13:40, 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. GlassCobra 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Amrit

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

I'm not finding sufficient sources or references to prove that subject of this autobiography meets any notability requirements. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to meet WP:BIO and a Google search [35] and search of Google News [36] don't turn up any in-depth coverage of Mr Amrit. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 13 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its seems quite likely that Mr. Amrit created this article himself, though it really belongs on his personal URL, not here, if that's the case. But "Bula Bollywood" apparently may actually show on Fiji television for what that's worth. --Milowent (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the following sites and search result on google to prove that this is a genuine article:
- http://www.ajaywebsite.com - this is Ajays Personal Website and has all the activites he is involved in. If you search Ajay Amrit on Google you will see his name in many articles in relation to what is stated in his website.
- http://www.carvingdream.com - this is ajays entertainment company
- Videos on You Tube from his TV series Bula Bollywood: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

Also now more references has been added to verify that Ajay Amrit is also involved in Community Service and is a notable person in Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.37.10 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2009

Reply: I don't know if User: 202.170.37.10 is also User:Dbau13, but the above comment by the former is virtually identical to the comment the latter left on my talk page a few days ago. Consequently, I'll just repeat here some of what I said there:

It sounds like you're laboring under several misapprehensions, so I'll try to straighten them out:
YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

The fact that someone or something can be found by searching on Google does not, by any means, imply that they should have a WP article. If you think it does, feel free to write an article on my cat.

The subject's own Web site and own company's Web site don't count as reliable sources either.

The statement that "this is a genuine article" isn't a reason that the article can't be deleted. Actually, even if it is "a genuine article" about a genuine person, it still doesn't mean the article can't be deleted.

Before you [comment on the AFD], though, I strongly recommend that you go read a few Wikipedia articles on deletion and notability, such as WP:Notability (people), WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Why was my page deleted?, WP:Introduction to deletion process, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.

Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and submit article to Cleanup for a thorough sandblasting. The person recives some coverage in Fiji Times... which seems he may have a notability in Fiji... but if the article cannot be improved, it can go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat stronger than weak delete. He seems to be a person of some importance in Fiji, but I can't bring myself to call it notable. He's cited as Chairman of ABC Foundation in one article, but also of the Rotary Club in another. ABC Foundation itself doesn't seem to bring up anything more than his name does in gnews, and "Bula Bollywood" in gnews brings up nothing. the June 2009 Fiji TV schedule suggests that Bula Bollywood may be less "hugely popular" than the wp article suggests, but I could be judging a book by its cover there. Looking at the material that's there, and failing to find any other information ("Ajay Amrit", "ABC Corporation" +fiji, and "Bula Bollywood" all brough up zero hits in Proquest, Gale, and Ebsco databases, even as passing mentions), I have to conclude that he hasn't done enough of the things necessary to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(people), and the things he has done are also not of sufficient worldwide importance to warrant inclusion. I have a regretful, axeman, feeling about it for some reason, but I don't think he warrants an article. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources which indicated notability. plus alot of information found.--Judo112 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to make things more clear, I've just gone through the article and removed the citations that either didn't WP:RS (Amrit's own sites & YouTube, for example) and or didn't actually back up the statements in the article. All that's left is, well, a whole lot of uncited information and WP:OR. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:56, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network Scale-up method

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

Was proposed for deletion as “non-notable neologism used by a single academic group”; I have no objection to the deletion – the article is extremely short – but the topic seems interesting enough that I would like to see what the community thinks before it is actually deleted. Bwrs (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Kinda tough to say, but ultimately I have to go with delete. Everything I've found is mostly related to this paper. Nothing that really indicates this is notable. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the list of papers linked in the article, here, show a bit of notability. I'm open to other editors' opinions of these. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine for a stub. Enough references can be made to get it to work. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete the prodder was correct. Interesting and notable are quite different things. It is not enough that something be interesting to be included in Wikipedia, the topic of the article must meet our standards of notability. This term appears to be a neologism and the method under any name has not achieved notability through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. If & when this becomes notable it may be included in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 15:04, 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) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drawn Some - PROD made sense; WP:NEO Chzz ► 21:47, 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. This debate is now turning in circles while the consensus is pretty obvious. Time to stop this. Tone 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Örbom

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable military officer violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying only 'non-notable' might not be sufficient for deletion'", then I agree with you. Otherwise, your comment is misinformed at best and deliberately useless at worst. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Non notable to you perhaps. Omegastar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so non-notable, how come several swedish writers wrote about him? Further more he wasnt just a captain, he was a squadron chief. Wikipedia doesnt offer an article about squadron chiefs, but a search on google shows its commanding/officer rank. Omegastar (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus is pretty clear, so in order not to drag on the process any longer ill support the concsensus. I do urge people to keep a NPOV on such matters. There are, for example, a significant amount of biographies about the american civil war that would fit the criteria for deletion easily. RAN: I would like to thank you for putting so much work into the article. I suggest you store it somewhere, because who knows? Maybe itll find a place here in the future. Omegastar (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable is the number-one valid reason for deletion. I applaud well-referenced articles, but I don't see the historical significance of Captain Orbom. He fought in the Battle of Poltava, but 60,000 other men did so as well. I'm willing to listen to an argument as to why someone considers him to be notable ("non notable to you perhaps" indicates that there's someone who will argue his case), but I don't even see that he was a footnote in world history. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 17 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) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment WP:BIO States that a article is notable if is it "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" I would argue that someone born 1675 that have current reprinted references written about him, even if they are short, are both notable and did actually leave a footnote in history since we are actually discussing him here and now, more than 300 years later. If this person was a Lieutenant that survived the Battle of Poltava, was held prisoner for 13 years, returned home , it for sure is interesting or unusual in my mind. I linked this to deletesort WP:MILHIST, I hope they have people with experience about similar articles and can add some old consensus to the debate, I might be wrong :-). --Stefan ^talk 09:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a delete, and it should be according to WP:BIO, but just think if this person was alive today, I think he would have passed WP:BIO easily with todays thousands of papers, magazines, the internet and all. It is very hard to pass WP:BIO for 300 year old people, there is a builtin BIAS against historical persons for meeting Notability, but maybe that is good, not sure. Nevermind lets delete and add some more pokemon characters :-) --Stefan ^talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —--Stefan ^talk 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply not enough significant coverage of this specific individual in sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Chzz ► 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in English language media means not notable enough for en.wiki. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out that rule in Wikipedia, I have never heard of it, or seen it invoked before ... it is also a Swedish Wikipedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--not only is there is no such rule, it would be a direct contradiction of one of the basic principles of WP:RS and WP:N. Sources in any language will do , both to show notability and for information in an article. The English Wikipedia covers the entire world, and someone or something notable anywhere is notable here. The only significance of the word "English" is that the encyclopedia is written in English. Fortunately, we have people here who can work with sources in any language--probably to a greater extent than any of the other language WPs have. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using non-English sources is 100% in line with WP:RS. (Though in situations where a fact could be sourced to both English and non-English sources, we should use the English one for the convenience of the reader, assuming the sources are otherwise equivalent.) But wether non-English sources can establish notability is a different matter, and it's a gray area at best. People like to cite WP:BIAS as though it were a policy or guideline, but in reality its not even an essay. It's a wikiproject.... At any rate it seems to me that as en.wiki serves an English speaking audience, we should be putting our effort into writing articles that are relevant to English speakers. If no one else is writing about at topic in English, we shouldn't be either. In other words: It's on Swedish wikipedia; that's great, people can find it there; there's nothing to be gained by having an English version here. I know there's no actual policy backing this assertion up, but there's no actual policy contradicting it either, so it's a gray area, and something we can disagree about in forums like these. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for this article is a general lack of notability and historical relevance, not that the sources are written in a language you don't speak. There is no "gray area" here, only the suggestion that linguistic chauvinism would in any way be compatible with NPOV. Peter ^Isotalo 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to assess the depth of the sources given that their titles haven't been translated from Swedish, but I see no reason to think that they're in-depth on the basis of the article's content, so WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They all seem like rather insignificant inclusions in non-general literature and sources. Most of them amount to little else but expanded army rosters. The preview of Ahnlund and Wichman hints at accounts of evangelical Christianity in Siberia, but this is still something that is generally applicable to the greater community of Swedish POVs in Russia. Most of the sources seem to merely repeat lot of the same basic facts, and I suspect that Lewenhaupt might be the source for most, if not all of them. There is basically zero secondary treatment of primary source material and no discussion of any historical significance. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for that Peter. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are examples of individual participants of the Swedish campaigns in the Great Northern War that are notable. For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife, which have become important historical sources. I don't see anything remotely interesting in the life of this particular individual, though. He fought in battles, was captured after Poltava, came home, spawned children and died. There is nothing remarkable about this that sets him apart from countless other Swedish soldiers. Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article, references, or elsewhere suggests that this guy meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a major (or captain) who did nothing particularly out of the ordinary, thus fails WP:BIO. Buckshot06(prof) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep per "non-notable" not being a convincing reason for deletion and as the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, i.e. a historical figure who is verifiable. Good job to Richard for his excellent efforts to reference! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion, and will remain a valid reason for deletion regardless of how many times you say it isn't. If wishes were fishes, you'd be a person who very strongly smelled of herring. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NPA. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody, you should note that this is really not a routine NN vote-to-delete. I and others have valid reasons for saying that this person is inherently non-notable. And while it's nice to see that you care about saving articles, the personal essay you've linked to above seems to be asking for negative proof. The burden of proof always lies on those actually claiming notability, not those questioning it. I'm also rather impressed at the effort that Richard has spent on building up this article, but as a Swedish history student, I'm puzzled about the reasons. I can't see how the fate of a person like Örbom would amount to more than a statistic. His fate seems to be too similar to that of his fellow soldiers to be interesting as an individual. Peter ^Isotalo 07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is well referenced, this person didn't do anything remarkable. It is very possible that the references are listing off all the officers of a given army (the title of the first reference . Karl XII's officerare: Biografiska anteckningar. certainly gives that appearance). Not every army officer is notable. My name found in a phone book, in the IBM directory, or even in my college yearbook, does not confer notability on me. Lacking some direct evidence that this officer is notable for something (more than just existing), delete as we are not a genealogy site. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he is verifiable and we can write an article on him, that is good enough. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not according to WP:N and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we can always WP:IAR, because an established editor in good faith is writing an article about a subject that is important to at least him. That counts more than ever changing and disputed bureaucracy. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody, why not argue the merits of the topic itself instead of engaging in all this sweeping criticism of general policy? Since Richard isn't keen on arguing why this subject is notable beyond its mere existence in Swedish official records, I would expect that anyone wanting to keep the article would at least attempt to get their bearings on the topic and actually produce something substantial that would save the article. Or at least some informed argument relating to the historical period itself. So far I get the impression that your activities here haven't extended beyond pure inclusionist-vs-deletionist politics. Peter ^Isotalo 19:34, 20 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optellios Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP notability standards, all sources are primary/press releases except for a tiny blurb in a local paper. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on notability here - http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/156136/51/none/none/EDITO/No-mixed-signals - advancing new optical technologies besides commercial purpose only. Article could use more detail but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.0.249 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - that article isn't really about Optellios. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find press releases and press release rehashes. Only this reference in the article is what would be considered some actual coverage and it is very thin indeed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 17 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) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep, Their equipment/technology is used in hundreds of various facilities. While there is a lack of "original" press coverage, they are indeed a leader in their field. There is some info on them at business week...perhaps we could email them asking for original press coverage?Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a manufacturer of fiber optic perimeter security systems serving a limited clientele, unlikely to become a household name anytime soon. Their apparent government work might confer importance, but given their security work, it's unlikely to generate a lot of press coverage. Simply being a "leader in their field" is puffery; and the Business Week reference is a brief investment directory listing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a very "elite" set of clientele. Their technology will be used in Qingzang railway, and is in use at NORAD. Clearly, they are a leader in their field, and while they do not have significant press coverage due to the nature of their work, they should be considered ineherently notable given their leading status in their field.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "How do we know they are leaders in their field?" Absent sourcing to establish this, then it is all conjecture. They sold something to NORAD. Do we have information about competitors? Do we know if a competitor has sold similar systems in much larger volumes? If we don't have this information, then we cannot establish that they are leaders in their field. And without independent sourcing, we don't know the significance of these sales. All we have a very short blurb from the online site for a group of Philadelphia area newspapers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking around to see who else is claiming to be a leader we have:

Fiber Sensys who are "the market leading provider of fiber-optic based intrusion detection solutions for both government and industry"
Network Integrity system who also have a bunch of sales to the U.S. military and government, and if they are to be believed were also funded by the US Army
Future Fibre Technologies who list the US Air Force, US Army, US Border Patrol, US Dept. of Homeland Security, US, Navy, and NATO as customers

So without independent reliable sources, I'm not convinced they are leaders in their field. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case...and the fact that I did a more extended google/academic search which also turned up nothing...perhaps when some contract fraud or something newsworthy comes out, then they will be considered worthy of having an article.Smallman12q (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find reliable sources about this topic that would establish notability. The BusinessWeek link provided by Smallmanq does not establish notability since it is a listing in a directory. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Flores

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

This appears to be a relatively run-of-the-mill journalist; there don't seem to be many outside references to his work - the Editor and Publisher link in the article notwithstanding - and his work as a writer or as a musician doesn't appear to be of a level that would be considered notable in our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 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) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. text such as "contact me at my email address" indicate blatant self promotion and violation of WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 21:52, 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devamrita Swami}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gl-117}}