Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:13, 21 September 2010

< 20 September	22 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) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murdough

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

White nationalist runs for political office and gets some media attention. Clear WP:NOTNEWS violation. Yephedid (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ongoing significance as he is still the state chairman of his political party. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He chairs a minor political party. Big deal. Yephedid (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, though. The notability bar for party chairmen is set very low; Jim Clymer, who has never won an election, nonetheless passes the notability standard because he chairs the Constitution Party. Murdough has received more media coverage than Clymer ever did. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least that guy has been around for a while. This guy only appeared briefly in July. Yephedid (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument; there's no minimum length of time that someone has to be in the public eye in order for them to be on Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The duration of coverage is a valid consideration per WP:PERSISTENCE in that it helps differentiate between subjects that are truly notable and things that fall under WP:NOTNEWS. BTW, Clymer has had respectable showings in multiple elections and is the national chairman of an established third party, whereas Murdough is only the state chairman of a lesser known third party that has only been around for three months. Location (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guideline at WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The full policy is: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Which is the case for Murdough. Ergo, he does satsify WP: POLITICIAN. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. I interpret a relative blip of routine election coverage in local news sources to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They weren't just local news sources; national news outfits (like MSNBC) as well as outstate ones (like the New York Daily News) also ran articles about him. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you actually read what was in MSNBC? One paragraph that quotes three sentences from the Daily News and two from the Concord Monitor. There was no "significant coverage" on the part of any national news source. This was merely a news blip. Location (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate in a primary (he got 296 votes [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741843/]). "State Chairman" of a trivial-to-nonexistent party which is not recognized by the state of New Hampshire or any other state [1]. When I leave here, I will evaluate the page of that supposed party to see if it passes muster as notable. Mr. Murdough certainly does not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The party doesn't either. I have nominated it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eirin Jansen

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

Article about an actress with no verifiable notability. Just a list of works appeared in, no references except IMDB and other resume sites. No evidence of substantial discussion of her in reliable sources, seems to fail the criteria at WP:BIO. Jayron32 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a few theatre pieces, a few short films, a couple commercials, and no third party refs. Best of luck, but no. Hairhorn (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has a lot more than that; 35 credits including The Kennedy Centre, National Theatre, Royal Lyceum, and Young Vic. She's worked with important names in theatre; Mark Ravenhill, Charlotte Keatley and Kjetil Bang-Hansen. She's been in several features too, among them "I Am Dina", which is one of the most high-profile movies in Norwegian movie history. There she worked with Gerard Depardieu and Christopher Eccleston. I've seen her on stage and film. I thought IMDB was a reliable source, but will add more.

IMPORTANT- Eirin is also a high profile artist (co-creator of the city-wide Mankey Monkey project in Liverpool), I will add an artist biography, links, articles etc. relating to that as soon as I have time. --James W. Turner (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while she has had lots of jobs I didn't seen any that weren't minor roles. Eeekster (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually correct, from what I can see of her credits, most of them are leads or main parts. The last part I can see that wasn't a major one was in 2002, and that was in a movie with Gerard Depardieu and Christopher Eccleston. I've seen this actress in several plays and movies, (that's why I decided to write about her) and I've rarely seen her in a minor part. She's also a high profile artist, I need to add a chapter about that, but there a lot of links to articles about her artist work already, more to come. --James W. Turner (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The parts I've picked at random appear minor. As to the Mankey Monkeys, I am in Liverpool two or three times a week (sometimes more) and can't recall seeing anything of this campaign. I have had a connection with Alder Hey in the past, which would tend to make me notice this more than I might otherwise. From the Post and Echo's articles, it obviously happened. Unlike the multiplying of the Lambananas, it equally obviously made no impression on me. From the bulk of the Mankey Monkey links in the article, this is an important piece of work for the subject. There is virtually nothing there to back up the acting side, as far as I can see. The links given are not ones usually acceptable here as references (as external links, yes - but no references are given). IMDb, Casting Call Pro and Filmfront use supplied information. The Filmside poll of actors? Eirin in 18th place was beaten by an actor who is not well known for either his film or stage work. Adolf Hitler came in at number 9 (see his linked profile at http://www.filmfront.no/index.php/filmfront,actor.view/id,5541/ ) and Francis Ford Coppola managed 168, which isn't bad for a director, producer, writer and hotelier. The Who's Dated Who link I dismiss (apart from a Wikipedian's urge to correct the site's name to Whom. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the friendliest possible sense; you're of course entitled to your opinion, but through my extensive knowledge of Theatre, I can confirm that most of those parts are major. I could go into detail if you'd like me to? There is also a one woman show there. More smaller parts in the early years of her career yes, but that goes for most actors. Regarding Mankey Monkey, that was a huge art project, over 100 sculptures and widely written and talked about in Liverpool. I'm surprised you could've been to Liverpool during that time and missed it, I went to see what it was all about and they were everywhere. One article says "Mankey Monkey fever" in Liverpool, it was. But there is plenty of documentation. Ultimately, I don't decide if this article stays or goes, but it would be a shame to remove it. She is an important actress and artist. I don't know if you're trying to dismiss the Din Film Side webpage, but that is an actual list of searches made at that website, which shows who people actually search for. Adolf Hitler is appearing in many documentaries, and I don't find it strange at all that people search for him. Plenty of the almost 70 links in the article can be used as references, I just need to move them and expand the article as soon as I have time. --James W. Turner (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that 1224 people looked for (or voted for - I haven't worked out which yet) for Hitler as an actor - and that Hitler has a profile on Filmfront. To my mind, this casts doubt on both the validity of the figures as an indicator of 'popularity', and the reliability of Filmfront as a source. Of course, coming high in a list like this might mean that very few had heard of the person before - which is the usual reason I look people up. I stand by my lack of perception of the monkeys. Not one did I see. I would suggest getting some references considered reliable in quick - see WP:RS. Most of those Monkey links don't mention Eirin at all, and having so many could lead people to thoughts of spam... Technically, I think, as there are links but not references, the article could be subject to deletion as unreferenced BLP. That's nit-picking, I know, but good reliable refs for the acting side are needed. To me, the monkeys aren't enough by themselves. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler also has a profile on imdb. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0386944/ He's not an actor, but is appearing in many important documentaries, which is why people would search for him. To my understanding the list on Dinfilmside is of searches. I generally search for actors that interest me on film websites, not those I haven't heard of. I'm sure you agree that the reason Hitler is so high up on the list isn't because only few people have heard of him. I doubt 1050 people would search for an actress that only a few have heard of. I do apologise if I've misunderstood your point. There are also 2 features in Business Ezine, one about her art company, which mentions a lot more than the monkey project. I will add a chapter about the other art. Also, according to the official map: Tesco, BBC, Grosvenor, Pizza Express, Liverpool FC TV and Hollyoaks all sponsored a monkey, I think that's a pretty big deal. Regarding the monkey links, I thought the point was to find as many links as possible for credibility? I had no idea that could be seen as spam, I certainly have no wish to spam anyone. What should I remove? I Googled "Mankey Monkey" to find the links to articles etc, and they definitely do mention her and sometimes has her picture there too. She's even in a Mankey Monkey video with Henry Winkler. There are a lot of links on Mankey Monkey and I disagree wholehartedly that none of them are reliable. I certainly consider many of those sources, including Liverpool Echo and The Daily Post to be very reliable. I would like this article to stay because I think it belongs here and I will add more to help it, although after all this I'm really ready to write about other subjects too! Thank you for your views and help! --James W. Turner (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a working actor but does not pass WP:BIO and certainly does not pass WP:ARTIST. No reliable sources, non-trivial sources are available. freshacconci talktalk 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely more going on here with this new article than only a "few" theater pieces. Appears to meet WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While yes, it lacked inline citations and referencs when first nominated,[2] new editor User:James W. Turner has since added a great many external links,[3] many of which are news articles dealing directly with this person and their work.... and yes, many of these external links need conversion to proper references... but concerns with style and format would seem addressable through regular editing and not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has played quite a few parts (note that some in the list are 'rehearsed reading' which are NOT parts played on stage) - but I find most to be either minor parts (Helen) or untraceable (Heather Clarke), or major roles played at very minor venues (Juliet at a secondary school). I am open to being convinced - but the links steer well clear of the acting side and concentrate on the Monkeys. My delete post above was after the great list was part of the article - and that list went a long way to helping me make my decision. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few notes; I've researched it and she played Juliet at a Drama College, not a Seconday School. And according to her birth date on imdb she was 19. Also, most are not minor parts, all these are major; Cherie, Diamonique, Catherine, One Woman Show, Abigail, Miranda, Hedvig. I don't know all the other films/plays, but I can only find 3 minor parts here (apart from her early years); maid, Helen and Cordelia. (And Helen is far from as small a part as you indicate; at least not in the performance she was in. First time I saw this actress on stage was in A Doll's House in Edinburgh.) Only 3 out of 37 credits are rehearsed readings, and all 3 are with two of the most important British playwrights of our time. --James W. Turner (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the Hartvig Nissen - I was taking it to be the high school of the same name. Still, as with the Rose Bruford, roles undertaken at college are not usually regarded here as particularly notable. As to Helen, I re-read the play to make sure. The character is listed as Housemaid in the DP, is called Helen by Nora, but doesn't have many lines. I don't know if there is a different version of the play. I'm having a Google problem - it's only giving me one page of results for any search. Don't know what's going on there. I haven't altered anything. This is stopping me finding things beyong first page. Peridon (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got my Google back again... "cherie and diamonique" on Google gives three results - here and two profile lists. Like with Heather Clarke, I can't see any more about it. If you have references that will tell us, please give them. I'm afraid that her lists and you seeing her don't count as reliable sources. Equally, "Nowhere Close Omnibus" only comes up with the same three ghits. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to patronise anybody and I don't know how much you know about staging plays. But when staging a play, it's hardly ever done exactly as it says in the script. The director will take a new approach and choose a focus, a direction he wants to take the play in. He will remove lines and often whole scenes, and also add lines, actions and sometimes scenes to it. Otherwise there wouldn't really be any point in re-staging old plays, they'd all be the same. Eirin Jansen's part in A Doll's House was in no way a lead, but it was much bigger than, and far from as insignificant as you describe. As I mentioned, I watched it. The reason I mention Cherie and Diamonique is that that's the other play I've seen that actress in; which is how I know the parts were major. I may still have the program (I have hundreds of theatre programs, but I can have a look-through if I get time) but I have no idea who wrote the play or how to get hold of a copy of the script to prove it, so I guess (unless I find the program) I can't. But there are 37 credits to choose from, and I agree wholeheartedly with Schmidt. This article should be kept. --James W. Turner (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem here in that we have no evidence (beyond your word) that this is the case. Everything seems to come back to Eirin's profiles. There should be some word about C&D, but I can't even find it in connection with the producer Carl Wharton (who smiles) or the actor Carl Wharton (who scowls). (Actually, the same person wearing different expressions on two sites giving details for his different sides of the business.) There should be reviews, but I'm not even finding blogs. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've Googled up this profile of another actress who was in the same production of Nowhere Close directed by Carl Wharton: http://www.uk.castingcallpro.com/view.php?uid=46869 So it clearly happened. I can't prove C&D were major parts unless I find the program, but there are 37 credits to choose from, so and all in all I still agree with Schmidt that the profile should be kept.--James W. Turner (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crespin Adanguidi

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

fails WP:PERP. simply being a murderer is not enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDon't see where this subject is anything more than a passing news story; not enough outside of the standard news cycle to get past the WP:NOTNEWS issue; something showing lasting historical importance such as books about him, or discussions outside of news reports of his crime and/or trial would be helpful, but as it stands now, I don't see where this subject merits an article. --Jayron32 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a run-of-the-mill criminal; no sign of any notability as the only major coverage is from news sources at the time of the crimes. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Fail Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intercolegial de Baile

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

Terribly written, terribly formatted. No sources for over 2 years, list format. No sources found in English or Spanish. Intercolegial de Baile 2005 was already deleted via AFD in May; 2009 had an AFD around the same time but was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources found? What about the ones that show up when you click on the words "news" and "books" in the nomination? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcopic Records

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

Contested PROD : No indication that this company meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORP as there does not appear to be any significant coverage of this company. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim lede, and rename to Transcopic Records Discography. The label is already adequately covered in the Graham Coxon article, and this is largely a list of releases on the label, most of which are by notable artists.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christl Ruth Vonholdt

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

Nomination repaired on behalf of Shivago12. Reason is: Hoax article. All English and German Articles listed here are self published. Articles purpose seems to promote her articles / books here. Entire editing history is for the single purpose to promote her German article, which was already noted for deletion. Pgallert (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article is abysmal but this seems to be a notable individual of controversial views. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I would not go so far as the nominee in imputing a motive for having the article, she seems non-notable. She holds a doctorate in an unrelated field; having a doctorate does not render one notable. 3 of the books under publications she co-edited rather than wrote or co-wrote. The only books listed there that she wrote are the self-published second one (Selbstverlag) and her dissertation (on varicose veins, but in any event writing a dissertation and one self-published book does not make one an author). The first article is a translation on the website of a private anti-gay organization of an article that de.wikipedia states was published in a journal of another private anti-gay organization, and the other (other 2 on de.wikipedia, which adds one on transsexuality) was (were) published in a journal of the organization with which she is affiliated. Hence the articles are not peer-reviewed. This is not enough to satisfy the notability criteria as an academic or an author. And her position is director of an institute within a church or religious organization, so she is not notable for heading that, either. I do not find evidence in the de.wikipedia article of her having had sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources that she warrants an article. There are numerous footnotes there, but the vast majority are statements by her or by her organization or references to the law and legislative deliberations. There is one interview for a newspaper, reproduced by her organization here (and footnoted 2 different ways in the de.wikipedia article - same interview). This is by no means the substantial coverage required for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. But why a hoax? Is there evidence any of this is unverifiable? Vrivers (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to look beyond the Google News search spoon-fed at the top of this discussion to find notability, with many reliable sources found such as these. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for putting these forward - they will be needed if the article is kept, because it badly needs more refs., and 2 of them (1 and 3) specifically report on her having appeared by invitation at a conference and the resulting outrage. However I still do not see the notability. That's exactly the purport of the coverage on the conference - whether she and the church institute she represents should be accorded this much respect. And (2) is from Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, which German Wikipedia portrays as very much a regional organ (southern Sachsen-Anhalt) and so I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. (One might reasonably say the same of Rheinische Merkur, where the one interview with her cited by the German Wikipedia article appeared.) Also the MZ article is about the Catholic church - it may be from their equivalent of the "god slot". Certainly limited in focus to religious ethics, hence she is being cited as an expert within a strictly religious context. I do not think this meets the threshhold for generally recognized expertise or for generally broad coverage in the press. The Marburg conference looks a bit like a "one event" flurry in the news. So my opinion stands: not sufficiently notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll work on the references some more tomorrow, but it is quite clear that she is notable, having been covered in a non-trivial manner in all of the major German newspapers. I personally believe her views are sickening and disgusting, but I can't argue about her notability. Silver seren^C 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is clearly notable but more ref. would be good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Phil Bridger. Dewritech (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, no outstanding delete !votes. Courcelles 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers

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

So what???? copied from below: "to me this list appears to be breaking the Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager.

I do expect a ton of baseball fans to probably snowball it, so I would prefer to have the opinions of non-fans of the sport. Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Nomader ^(Talk) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I vote, three things come to mind: (1) Wouldn't it have been better to bring this up at WP:BASEBALL before starting an AfD? (2) If you really want an AfD, shouldn't you nominate all of them at once, rather than just nominating one of them? (3) Are you aware that some of these pages have achieved featured list status? How do you figure that articles that passed FLC aren't notable? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Um...someone care to translate that rambling, incoherent mess of a rationale for this nomination so that I can figure out what I'm voting on? -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Actually, I think I've got it...the rationale is pretty much purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, I'll respect the nominator's request for "non-fans" to speak first... -Dewelar (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the nominator give a more specific rationale as to why this article should be deleted? The nomination was rather meandering and as Dewelar said, it mostly just dregged up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No, it is not IDONTLIKEIT, but instead WHOCARES. Opening Day is not a defining point in the baseball season like playoffs are. Being a starting pitcher in a minor event of the season is not notable. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHOCARES states, "... personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I've never really been a hardcore baseball fan myself and I've never edited a baseball list here– however, I can say that Opening Day does seem to be pervasively important in baseball and the starting pitcher of the first game shows who managers feel is the strongest pitcher on a team at that point in the season. I found the list to actually be a pretty fascinating read in its odd statistical quirks. It needs work, as I've commented at the FLC and will continue to do so throughout the period of this AfD, but I feel overall that this is a net positive to Wikipedia and a valid subject for an article. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise I just noticed that half of the articles in the category are already FLs, which means 1) I should have clicked around before AfDing; 2) editors will be extremely reticent in voting delete. Anyways, to me this list appears to be breaking the Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager. Nergaal (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere, being the Opening Day starting pitcher for a team carries a status that starting at another position does not. For one thing, unlike other positions, starting pitchers do not play every day (or at least haven't in over a century). As for the NOT#STATS argument, the only statistics I see on the entire nominated list are the game scores, so that's an awfully low threshold on which to base that argument. -Dewelar (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-baseball fan chipping in here. To me there seem to be two issues here: 1) what is the significance of a pitcher starting on Opening Day in particular? Presumably List of Chicago White Sox 37th-game-of-the-season starting pitchers would be laughed off WP, but what makes the list for those who pitched in game 1 more, I dunno, important....? 2) is there particular significance in an opening day pitcher, as opposed to any other position? Why not List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting shortstops? If someone could answer those, I'd be in a better position to comment on this AfD. Hope what I'm driving at with those two points makes some sort of sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a team's starting pitcher on Opening Day is seen as an honor and a mark of status - an acknowledgment that the pitcher in question is his team's preeminent starting pitcher (commonly termed an "ace" or "#1 starter"). The situation with shortstops isn't analogous, in that teams do not rotate between five different shortstops game-by-game throughout the year, as they do with starting pitchers. Teams will typically use a set lineup, with the exception of the starting pitchers, who need to rest for several days after pitching before they can pitch again. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any sources to back it up with? The better the better. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your post below. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ 1) appealing to the existence of other similar lists is a bad argument. 2) a gnews search imply that opening day starting pitchers are not a notable topic. If someone can convincence me that it is, I would be happy to support/keep this as a content fork of "list of opening day starting pitchers". Sandman888 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your search was malformed - the common term of art within baseball is "Opening Day starter", not "Opening Day starting pitcher". ["Opening day starter" baseball] returns 115,000 Google news hits, as well as 221 book citations. A few of those will refer to position players (which is why the list under discussion is located at the less-common but also less-ambiguous title), but the vast, vast majority discuss pitchers. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by the appeal to outside data I've struck my oppose. 1) I will however remind people to remain civil, it is perfectly reasonably to AfD an article if the notability is questioned no matter how many similar article exist. 2) This AfD does in no way qualify for speedy keep and should run its course. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will acknowledge that the honor of starting on opening day is not laid out as clearly as it should be in these lists. However, it is an honor, and as all of the arguments for deletion being bandied about are a stretch, I say ~~Speedy~~ Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Speedy Keep, just a Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found through Google news and Google books– the lists do not do an adequate job of stressing the importance of the Opening Day pitcher, but it is an important aspect of baseball nonetheless. Although I respect Nergaal's decision to bring this list to AfD and I see why he brought it here, I feel that the notability for this kind of list is not just on a fan, in-universe basis as he suggests, and as such feel that the list should be kept. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "So What?" is not a valid reason to delete. Opening day starters have received much coverage in reliable sources, more so than the other games that nominator mentions. The article is sourced fairly well so this nomination seems to be just personal bias on the part of the nominator. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep So, now you're seriously arguing that the scores of the games on the list (which, as I have said above, are THE ONLY STATS ON THE PAGE) qualifies as too many stats? Wow...just...wow. Embarrassing. -Dewelar (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a seriously embarrassing misrepresentation of my reasoning. I am not sure useful is this discussion after you said above that you would abstain from this AfD only to start throwing unfounded statements when people start presenting opinions against your own. Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're the one who brought up WP:NOT#STATS as an argument. What other stats are there on the page? Perhaps you're also counting the team win-loss record in such games, but as that is part of the article's prose the guideline does not apply to that. Seriously, if you can tell me what else is stats beyond the game scores, I will apologize and withdraw my above comment. I have also struck the "speedy" portion of my !vote per Sandman888's note.

Second of all, I never said I would abstain, I said I was going to allow non-fans to speak first per your request. Your arguments, beyond the one about Opening Day not being important outside the baseball world (which, despite your misuse of the term "in-universe", could be considered relevant), have been thin at best.

Third of all, I'd posit that, from your initial language in your nomination, you meant this nomination to be disruptive. You certainly meant it to be insulting to baseball fans. -Dewelar (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the original nomination language is actually bad form because many of the above comments were in response to it and a closing admin might not understand the full scope of the conversation. Spanneraol (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's a good point. When I saw the nominator deleted the original text of his nomination, I thought about reverting it. The guidelines on AfD are clear that striking it out, as you did initially, is the way to go, but it wasn't firm enough that I would actually revert the edit myself. You're entitled to qualify your original post, but it should remain part of the record. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid deletion rationale. Default to Keep. Vodello (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of whether the nominator likes it, opening day starters are notable, as indicated by the sources and coverage each opening day of the starters. Further, several similar articles are featured lists, indicating a consensus that they topic meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting withdrawing if that is appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the notability guidelines of WP:N and the guidelines for lists in WP:CLN. BRMo (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 Biggest Hits

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

Questionable notability. Nothing but a directory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTCATALOG Nowyouseeme talk2me 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Film Festival of London

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

Contested PROD : Non Notable Film Festival, promotional in nature. Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two references since added to the article indicate that it meets the general notability guide. In addition, being 'promotional in nature' isn't an argument for deletion - it's an argument to remove the promotional text, which I have done. Finally, it can't be unduly promotional if it's about an event which happened in the past - it finished on 5 September. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is not significant rather more WP:ROUTINE in nature. Codf1977 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might become notable someday, but isn't now. Of the two references provided, one is from The Guardian, a Reliable Source, but is just a routine one-paragraph calendar item. The other reference is from an online magazine specializing in South American topics. Nothing else found in a Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Chase me ladies - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It is not clear to me in what way the article asserts notability about the event. Lambanog (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Anti-Violence Project

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

[4] G-news hits indicate borderline notability, Article had multiple tags since Oct 2007 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the gnews hits refer to events run rather than indepth coverage which is required to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XS Malarkey

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

No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well it certainly exists, as even a perfunctory search will show. And according to The Guardian here, and The Independent here, it's popular. AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, so it boils down to this: should comedy clubs be in Wikipedia? Back to The Grauniad, this time here; "Running a comedy club for a decade is quite an achievement in any circumstances, but outside London, on a shoestring, it really is something to be proud of." So, keep. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources easily available if you look. I have found, and added sources from The Guardian and Time Out as well as a brief mention in The Metro. --Korruski (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Stephen and Korruski. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the question is whether comedy clubs should be on Wikipedia, but whether this comedy club should be on Wikipedia. There, we find some sources to indicate that notability may exist, and that's sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Northern Car Clubs

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

No decent refs found after search, poor context. Beeshoney (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. Page was created to remove this information from the ANCC disambiguation page. bd2412 T 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jmundo (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability asserted. Obviously no one cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Mindfulness Center

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

One hit on G-news archives fails WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single gnews hit is about a specific event held there, not the center itself. Although it is mentioned it is a trivial mention, definitely not enough to establish notability. Nothing useful on google either. Yoenit (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mu (lost continent). Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mu (Cthulhu Mythos)

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

fictional Continent Fails GNG the Cthulhu Mythos article does not even mention it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Lovecraft took the idea of Mu from earlier mytholgy about this place which we cover at Mu (lost continent). This is documented in works such as The 13 Gates of the Necronomicon and so the matter is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Col. Warden. Mu in Lovecraft's works is not substantially different from Mu as exposited in prior fictional works. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga meat

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

Dubious notability, sources only seem to mention it tangentially. Nothing but a list of OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to agree, this topic isn't notable and I don't think it deserves its own page. Delete I Feel Tired (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholeheartedly concur with the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the heck is manga meat? This is pure WP:OR - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of original research. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Rıfat Ülküman

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

Possible hoax, as someone from the public asserted. Not really sure, but it is plausible, so bringing this to AFD. NW (Talk) 02:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to be verified. The only source apparently covers his death; nothing backs up anything else about his life. Google searches are cumbersome with the language issue, but I didn't turn up anything. Additionally, there is no article about Ülküman on the Turkish Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hoax. You can check from Encyclopedia of Turkish Authors vol. III as cited in the article. He is rather unknown to common people who are not deeply involved in Turkish politics. Alexanderanenko (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Alexanderanenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is also bogus. There is no encyclopedia with the title "Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" as cited in the article. There is one "Türkiye Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" though, yet it does not contain a Fatih Rıfat Ülküman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.178.92 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Nothing found in a Gsearch. Not even a Turkish language article. I find it amazing how many articles appear on the English language Wikipedia that don't seem to exist on the native language WP for the subject in question. Or do I? Anyway. If he is so unknown that there is only the one mention of him in an apparently untraceable encyclopaedia (although Türk and Türkiye are fairly close), then he hardly merits an article here. "He is rather unknown to common people who are not deeply involved in Turkish politics" - so English speakers other than those with involvement in Turkish politics are unlikely to want to look him up, and presumably those who know about him won't need to.... Peridon (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's upsetting for me to see that someone can falsify and deny the existence of true Turkish novelist F. Rifat Ulkuman just because their political views.As i mentioned in C.Fred's page today it's almost impossible for a reader find an original copy of his novels ,but a copy of Cankaya Tables can be found at the 3. floor of the library of Istanbul University( I would love to give an ISBN number but as you all know it wasn't exist at 70's). Labeling the life and publications of such a person as 'Hoax' just because of not supporting or completely opposing with his ideas , is a dumb mistake.I believe that one day F. Rifat Ulkuman will get the courtesy that he deserves while he was living from every part of the society even though they don't support his ideas.

Ps. His haters mention that there is no article stands in Wikipedia Turkish which is right, but just because the number of the results in English is more then it comes up in Turkish doesn't mean that he is not real. A good example for this situation is Orhan Pamuk with this kind of weird determination methods we can claim that Orhan Pamuk doesn't exist . Other than that there is no problem with the name of "Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" as his clear intention of misleading the administrators here stands i must make something clear.Türkiye is the name of the country like US and we don't call it America Idol, or America Plant Encylopedia ,same in Turkish we call it Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi(Turk Respresent any human being who lives in Turkey or has a Turkish Origin).As my last sentences please guy don't waste your time to remove the sign's that has given to the path of history by such a great person even you removed it from everywhere else we will always remember him.

alparslan2 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — alparslan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am not a hater of him. I'd never even heard of him before today, as I suspect is the case for everyone else here except the creator. I, for one, couldn't care a tinker's cuss about Ülküman's political views. I can only go by the internet for establishing notability in this caser, and there are no ghits I can find for him - in any language. I never restrict my search to one language only. To me, this suggests that no-one either inside or outside Turkey has thought it worthwhile to mention him online - until now. I am not saying 'hoax' as I can't prove that. I am saying 'no evidence' - as I can't find any, and you don't seem to be providing any. Without some evidence, no article. Orhan Pamuk? Well known, wide-selling, easy to verify. Interviewed by the Daily Telegraph, referred to in the Guardian - and that's just in the first six ghits. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked on Vikipedi and no-one has tried to create an article there. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. He is a fictional character created by an ekşi sözlük and twitter user to criticize Turkish ideology of Kemalism. Kavas (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ekşisözlük"?? Peridon (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You define anything you want in this dictionary, but the correctness of the information is unclear. One user created a fictional writer, wrote a definition of him to this dictionary and this has come to WP. Kavas (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ekşi Sözlük (for which, thanks to Kavas.) Peridon (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be removed due to the fact that "Fatih Rıfat Ülküman" is a bogus historian created by an "ekşi sözlük" (http://sourtimes.org) web site user, in order to lay down an hoax that provides a false claim that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had ordered the execution of his former brothers-in-arms (http://www.eksisozluk.com/show.asp?t=fatih+r%C4%B1fat+%C3%BClk%C3%BCman and http://www.eksisozluk.com/show.asp?t=ismet+ben+%C3%B6l%C3%BCrsem+adnan%27%C4%B1+ve+celal%27i+ast%C4%B1r). The existence of such an author named "Fatih Rıfat Ülküman" could be checked from the National Library of Turkey (http://www.mkutup.gov.tr/index.php?yenidil=ing) and also from Bilkent University Library online catalogues (http://librarycatalog.bilkent.edu.tr/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/0/0/49) which are the two of the richest sources on Turkish books). It should be noted that the article is lacking any citeable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.109.143 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio State Speech and Debate Team

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

School Club, Long term GNG tag not Encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable, just unsourced. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in Wikipedia sources are what we use to establish notability. Without sources there is no notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ORG. "seems notable, just unsourced" is a very weak reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google & gnews search did not turn anything, does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yoenit (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muskegon Film Festival

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

Can only find a handful of sources, seems to Fail GNG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows passing mentions. which verify its existence rather than establish notability. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Brosnan

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

Unverified biography whose main function seems to have been advertising for the company founded by the subject, Creative Hammer. Note the history for the main editors, where you'll find Creativehamedia. Anyway, a blatant COI and some spamming is not a sufficient reason for deletion, but the apparent lack of notability is: I can find nothing through Google News and Google Books about this subject--and nothing is offered in the article. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional COI note: see this edit summary by the article's main editor, who identifies himself here as Tim Brosnan. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For someone who has done all these things, there is, apparently, no newspaper or other reporting of them. It makes me wonder how real they are.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A bunch of references have been added that appear to assert a degree of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not demonstrated. The so-called references are mostly just a bibliography. Even the Romanian references are not about Brosnan but are based in part on one of his columns. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough notability to warrant a wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am forced to agree with Jimmy Pitt. All those references appear to be a bibliography of his work, nothing about the subject himself. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fretzie Joans R. Bercede

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

Someone else tried to AFD this but didn't finish their work. Only references are OTHER FREAKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. How stupid can you get?

Anyway, fails WP:ANYBIO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can cite ourselves. She's cute, but third runner up on a reality show isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. She may become notable, but currently she is not. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to not have done much notable, (obviously) in and out of the PBB house. Maybe in the future... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have achieved simultaneous UK and US number-one hits

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

What's the point of this intersection? It's trivial and original research. None of the sources mention the songs or artists being number one in both countries. This kind of list can be done with any two (or more) countries. But if that's ok, so be it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice list. These are the two largest English-language sales charts, so it stands to reason that this is a matter of significant interest to rock historians. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting list. It's a well recorded fact that getting into both charts is both difficult, and a major goal for English-language artists, so this list has importance that a random intersection of two other countries would not have. --Korruski (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources to back that statement would be a big help for your argument. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List has clear inclusion, really should be tagged for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. And certainly books/articles about the Beatles at least have noted their simultaneous topping of the US and UK charts. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coldplay's album achievement got press, which also referenced Radiohead's.[5] MusicWeek also noted that very few artists have managed to top both the US and UK single and album charts at the same time: "The Beatles, The Monkees, Simon & Garfunkel, Rod Stewart, Men At Work, Michael Jackson and Beyonce remain the only artists in chart history to score simultaneous number one singles and albums in the UK and the USA, after Coldplay are knocked off the US singles perch."[6] So this isn't really improper synthesis, so I reckon we should keep. Fences&Windows 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. This could well be made into an FL, should the effort be expended, and the above findings have demonstrated that this is not an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Anne Taylor

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

Seems to only be an extra or bit part in her dozen or so roles. There is no reliable, independent sources that I can find on her that show she is anything other than an extra in the shows/movies she has appeared in. Does not pass WP:BIO standards. either way (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of her roles appear to rise above bit part, but in really, really bad movies that nobody has seen, so she hasn't gotten any press. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. She had no major roles. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Sensenig-Dabbous

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

Declined PROD that I felt merited further discussion. Subject is a political scientist who I feel falls short of WP:PROF; citations in Gscholar were unremarkable. While he does have some quotations in Gnews, I think they fell short of the "substantial impact" standard imposed by the notability guideline. Ray^Talk 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references to the article. I think him being the creator and leader of Democrats Abroad - Lebanon is good enough for his notability, in my opinion. He also seems to be fairly important as a political scientist. Silver seren^C 03:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With GS cites of 7, 3, 3 fails WP:Prof. Can he pass on WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't think so, but opinions may differ - my checking didn't extend beyond the Gscholar, Gbooks, and Gnews links at the top. Ray^Talk 06:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails PROF with insufficient evidence of scholarly impact (cites, positions), and I don't see other support for alternate notability claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. He could be a player in the steamy world of middle eastern politics but the article's proponents will have to prove that. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't do enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Silverseren for improving the article! I hope that the amount of publications can be taken into consideration when thinking about his notability and that the article can be kept.Ketchupheinz (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Despite improvements to the article I'm still not convinced. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to deletion and the article is an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Lloyd

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

Article uses a single website as a reference, that's hardly enough to establish notability. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no secondary references. Google searches return many other Raymond Lloyds making it hard to identify items that may be related to the subject of the article in particular. The publication this person is supposedly known for is obscure too. Lambanog (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Significant arguments leaning in favor of Keep, however valid concerns raised by multiple users arguing for deletion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreja Gomboc

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

Lacking notability per WP:PROF. Web of Science lists 39 articles between 1996 and 2010. There is one with 92 citation, but also with 30+ co-authors where she is in the middle. All others have max 38 cites, again with plenty of co-authors and her name in the middle. Total number of citations is 492, which is rather low. She might be notable for the Slovenian wiki, but not for English one. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As at least per 3rd item of criteria in WP:PROF she is among others a member of the European Astronomical Society and International Astronomical Union. Then she is an active researcher in the field of astrophysics, high energy physics, relativity and the Gaia mission. --xJaM (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EAS membership is fee based. IAU members are elected, but usually on a country basis, i.e. she might well be notable nationally and thus be an IAU member, this says nothing about her international notability. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If memberships of EAS and IAU are not enough, let me continue. In November 2007 she received award for research project of the year, which is awarded by British newspaper The Times Higher Education. Reviewers had awarded exceptional team work and results of measuring polarisation of optical afterglows, which were published in Science.[7] Among others she is also a coauthor of article in Nature. I suggest extending article (if it is not yet suitable regarding notability), and not deleting it. Primož Trubar for instance is actually also not 'internationally notable', but en wp has its article. Can you evaluate more precisely (or just by hand with an eye view) statement that she is in the middle...? Is this fact perhaps due to nature of this kind of astronomical/astrophysical work? --xJaM (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about that Nature article above, in the nomination. Extra large collaborations are not uncommon, and usually crucial contributors are in front (those who done most work) and at the tail (heads of laboratories who organized measurements). She is in the middle, same for the Science article you mentioned above (it is not much sited, I don't know why). Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you perhaps any suggestions for extending (and of course not deleting) the article? I can add some latest (although anonymous) additions from Slovene wp (which currently unfortunatelly have inline external links) - but better if I wait for outcome of this deletion proposal. --xJaM (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much on GS. Early career researcher. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
For another Prekmurian - sinologist Jana S. Roškar there are 16 enries on GS ([8]). Should we then also propose deletion for articles of some other Prekmurians? --xJaM (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, unsourced BLP, appears to fail WP:PROF. Article may be keepable if evidence of notability is found. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This deletion discussion is clearly based on prejudical nationalism and I therefore oppose upmost harshly. She is a promising scientist known to a wide international scientistic circle and already noted for her research work, even though she is not in her scientistic and researching prime yet. @Materialscientist: If you want to delete the articles, which really need deletion, try rather some low-profile young actors and actresses. I'll definitely back you there. Cheers to whereever --Jambornik (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Nationalism. I thought it is a science debate. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might call this kind of 'nationalism' "academic nationalism". For instance, at least two prominent Slovene mathematicians had to go through AfD, Pisanski and little later Marušič - I do belive that without any particular reasons. I think I understand Jambornik. For professor Marušič there was debate about the Zois Price, which is the premier science prize in Slovenia. If someone never hear of it, this does not mean that it does not exist. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that it exists, but the question is-is it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Google Scholar should not be relevant for determining person's notability/importance (especially for non-English speakers; there are other local tools). Even I (as a high school student) got some entries, comparing to some notable Slovene philosophers that haven't got any entry. --Smihael (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, once you oppose, provide us with such sources please. She is not a philosopher and not ancient. In her field all achievements are widely published. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, putting aside any concerns about citations, she hasn't done or discovered anything yet. Encyclopedia articles need to be more than a CV. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Discovered anything yet' - this is very relative statement. As English article is mainly written by users who do not speak English as mother tongue, I believe it is more then just a CV - and as I've written some line above, some additions can be transfered from Slovene article. Perhaps even you and me can not define at all what is in these fields discoverable. --xJaM (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...planned ESA mission, GAIA, which will measure...", "The space probe is to be launched ... in November 2012." Then it will take years to gather and analyze the data, and then more years to figure out if she has personally discovered anything. Abductive (reasoning) 07:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From page of HST we can see that this activity began already with Oberth in 1923. So there is a span of 67 years, when STS-31 mission finally launched this space telescope into Earth's orbit. We might also say that Oberth was one crazy dreamer, not to mention Spitzer. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to satisfy WP:Prof #1, 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. With only 45 cites and an h index of 3 from GS the present subject comes nowhere near these figures and does not satisfy any other the other categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC). Web of Science has higher statistics but still not enough. What about Scopus? It is to be noted that assistant professors are rarely found to be notable on the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
DELETE: no non-trivial reliable sources to verify information in the article and establish notability. The best independent source I could find was this, but that's not enough. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me one example of 'non-trivial reliable source' elsewhere of other academics, so we can figure it out what do you mean? One such source is stated, which can be also reached from site at the FMF UL. Source you've given quotes wp. --xJaM (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable source, independent of the subject, which would verify one of the points #1 to #9 in WP:PROF. For example, this source establishes #2 for Frances E. Allen. And sources that quote WP are never acceptable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't notice the source I linked quoted Wikipedia. That just makes your argument all the weaker.
The page from FMF UL is VERY TRIVIAL coverage. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Protector of Wiki: You probably mean later added page (in Notes) and not her homepage from FMF UL (in External links) that I was refering to? I do not know if it is trivial, but I've just used it to confirm that she is assistant professor at FMF, not to cover anything else. Yes, this is perhaps small paradox, if we neglect that you didn't notice that, that one 'independent source' summarizes from wp, and now we are voting to delete.
@Radagast3: This source is equally reliable as your example (unfortunately in Slovene), that she received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (#2 in WP:PROF) - Prekmurje research award 2002, which is of national level class. But the other question is then if this national level can do the trick.
I can also debate about #4, as she is young educator in (locally not so well known and covered) fields of astrophysics and astronomy, together that she was national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia, of course again just at national level, and not at international one. On January 2010 she also held lecture (titled Universe and we) in Slovenian National Assembly within project Znanje žanje (Knowledge reaps), which is I believe a great honour, and probably goes into #7. Also, article was written already on 2004-06-23, and it took over 6 years then for voting of deleting it. Strange indeed, isn't it. --xJaM (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Universe and we. Here are some nice photos from that event. --xJaM (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. 'Official translation' is The Universe and us according to lecture presentation --xJaM (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to xJaM, being national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia does not satisfy WP:PROF #4, nor does giving a lecture satisfy #7 (see the "Notes" section of WP:PROF). The best claim to notability is the "Pomurska Research Award". However, from WP:PROF, "For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc." The "Pomurska Research Award" does not seem to measure up to this standard. As to the delay in nominating the article, Wikipedia's policies have changed since 2004. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per xJaM--Deviator13 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Deviator13, who is an administrator on the Slovenian Wikipedia, care to say under which category of WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Especially #2, if we literally follow the national level, but that is my opinion.--Deviator13 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but, as noted by User:Radagast3, this award does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Per Criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." She had a lecture in the National Assembly of Slovenia regarding astronomy in January 2010, she regularly publishes articles in the most read Slovenian popular science astronomical magazine Spika, she was a national coordinator for Slovenia in the International Year of Astronomy (2009), organized several highly visited exhibitions in this capacity, etc. Overall, she has greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia and was bestowed the Prometheus of Science award by the Slovenian Scientific Foundation in 2009 for "exceptional achievements in organizing the communication of diverse astronomical contents". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand that link correctly, the "Prometheus of Science" award was shared between all 8 members of the IYA Organising Committee. However, I can see the case for Criterion #7, if sources can be found for the claim that she "greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia." Certainly, if she's widely known in Slovenia for her popularization of astronomy, then she's notable, in my opinion. However, that notability would need to be demonstrated by sources (either English or Slovenian), e.g. references to the exhibitions, news coverage, etc. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & expand Per #7 for WP:PROF. Time should be given to expand and improve upon the article given these issues pointed out. QuAz GaA 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to expand and improve the article irrespective of result of this voting. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF. We've seen criteria #2 and #7 discussed in this AfD, but the only clear published evidence of that that I can see is the "Prometheus of Science" award, and she is only the recipient of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/4 of the award (there are four categories, eight winning entries in her category, and eight co-recipients for her entry). This seems a bit too slim for my taste, and the other WP:PROF criteria seem even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Jennifer Hudson won 1/24th of an Oscar? 24 categories, single recipient... Gomboc doesn't appear that notable, but, well, the discussion is kinda hopeless now. --JaRoad (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Chertoff

Benjamin Chertoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable. Contributor to a few Popular Mechanics articles, but otherwise simply a 'freelance journalist.' Few or none of the sources are actually *about* him, they are just programs where he was a guest, or articles he contributed to. -Bonus Onus (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD nomination was not competed correctly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion A quick run-through of page sources and a brief Google search of this unfamiliar subject establishes sufficiently documented notability as far as I can see. Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems his work is controversial enough to have spawned conspiracy theories. Lambanog (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He does seem to have generated press about him, as well as press by him VASterling (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Juniper Networks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Networks Technical Certification Program

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

Non-notable certification program Tikiwont (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit heavily and merge with Juniper Networks. The fact that they run this program is important to understanding the company, but I don't see it as deserving of its own article currently. --Korruski (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Juniper Networks; this is a non-encyclopedic listing of stuff that's not close to notable. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tate

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

Contested PROD. "WP:N, WP:V. While Ms. Tate's voice work certainly is present in a number of credits, there's no reliable independent sources that I can find that provide more than a byline (Searches via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks)."

(If you can find appropriate WP:RS to verify and establish notability for this voice actress, of course those of us at the BLP Rescue Squad would appreciate your help! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per verifiable career meeting WP:ENT.[9] Commonness of name will make expansion and sourcing difficult, but do we toss because it may take a little work? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I agree with you (as nom) that "need to do work" is not (and should not be) a deletion criteria. Second, it's my understanding that IMDB is not generally considered a WP:RS because of the inclusion of unverified data, although I don't believe this is entirely unanimously accepted at WP:RSN, you'll have no trouble finding discussions [10] on that point. So, while I was the editor who added IMDB to the external links section, based on concerns about the reliability of IMDB as a source I wasn't willing to use it to establish verifiability (nor of course does it go towards notability.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The individual's career can be verified through the works themselves. But yes, being listed in the IMDB does not confer notability. This individual has such a common name that online searches give many false positives. Digging through them all will take a great deal of time and effort. I'll see what I might do to assist later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'm travelling (responding from Chicago Midway airport), or I'd revisit this, I did spend a fair bit of time looking, but as I tried to indicate, if an article can be reliably sourced, I'm thrilled to save it. Cheers! --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for using IMDB as a source for uncontroversial info, but it can never be the only source for an article, especially not a BLP. With no other coverage I can't see how this is going to meet the notability guidelines, although I'll happily change my !vote if someone finds something useful. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hollenbach

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

Unremarkable comic. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be related to a cluster of single-purpose accounts editing this bio and Miss Fag Hag Pageant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added articles and interviews about Shawn, I don't know how to note all his television and theater shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarbonaro (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per individual meeting WP:GNG. The article has many respectable sources speaking toward this person and their career. While understanding the nominator's concern toward its creators, now that it IS here, it belongs to Wikipedia... and THIS one meets our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Spa La Farandole

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

hotel article , doesn't estabilish notability Melaen (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I may be missing something, but none of my searches have come up with anything beyond confirmation that this hotel exists. No notability that I can see, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in google books or reliable sources. There are far more notable missing hotels in the Alps.Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full spectral imaging

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements, appears to deal with a single person's work on a new topic that has not attracted much attention. A13ean (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the phrase "full spectral imaging" is often used in a general way to refer to various imaging spectroscopy techniques, and not in the specific way described in the article. A13ean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - scholar Ghits from more than one author. Perfectly good start. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the paper described as the first discussion of this topic has, according to Google Scholar, attracted a grand total of two citations in six years, both in papers whose main subject is hyperspectral imaging. Juxtapositions of the words "full" "spectral" and "imaging" are not necessarily references to the subject of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean.... Bearian (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hyperspectral imaging? Bearian (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoblok

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

Non notable block of flats where notability has not been ascertained. No relevant speedy deletion criteria. Wintonian (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has significant coverage in these sources, has been the subject of a 65-minute documentary film and is described as both "famous" and "infamous". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to sourced improvements to content. Inclusion of Phil Bridger's links (above) might be useful. BlueRobe (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Phil. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekindling the Reformation

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

I am concerned that this article is promotional and that the creator AD-learn may have a connection to one of references, a commercial site AD TV. Wintonian (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: fix the article so it is in a neutral point of view and merge to Walter Veith as that is where it should be. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article lacks notability due to a lack of references to reliable third party sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Data assimilation. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assimilation (meteorology)

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

Poorly written article. Nothing here that isn't already in Data assimilation Dondegroovily (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - This article doesn't provide anything substantially different then what Assimilation already has. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Data assimilation. Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure101

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

Article doesn't establish notability and hasn't changed in 2 years. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. The award is not significant. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think winning the award might make it notable. Website provides links to a number of reviews [11], too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software by a non-notable company that received a non-notable award. The award ref is a self-published website; I cannot find it mentioned by any WP:RSS. Thundermaker (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henderson (novelist)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article claimed the author was a NYTimes Notable book for 1993 or 1994, but the Times articles do not support statement. Article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please see here for book being noted in Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/books/new-noteworthy-paperbacks-326296.html Vrivers (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That may show notability for the book, but I don't see "non-trivial" coverage of the author as required by WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Vrivers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for writing at least two books that got coverage several years apart. WP:AUTH #3 is likely the pertinent point by which this AfD stands or fails. Lambanog (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stereoside

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

This is an unremarkable band. A7 declined because the band as existed 5 years. So what? No reliable sources provided, no third-party coverage, no indication of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Billboard.com count as a valid chart source ? If so, the article satisfies WP:BAND due to them having an album that has charted [12] Ezhuks (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this they spent one week at number 48 on the heatseekers chart, I'm not sure this brings them up to the level of notability required...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete charting only at the very bottom of Heatseekers for one week without substantial third party coverage isn't enough. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The band has released 3 albums, 2 on Bieler Bros. Records, and in addition to the minor chart placing there's a short Allmusic bio and a few other items of coverage ([13], [14], [15]).--Michig (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charted album, added mention of it to article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. In response to a few things brought up in this discussion: Billboard.com is not just a valid chart source, but I would argue that it is the best valid chart source for the U.S. music charts. (The print version of Billboard is just as valid, but the online version is easier to reference.) On the other hand, the Top Heatseekers album chart is one of Billboard's lesser charts, because it only include artists who have not placed in high positions on Billboard's other charts yet. On the other, other hand, the one week when this band charted in Billboard appears to be last week -- September 18, 2010. So this band is apparently at its most successful point in its career right now, and deleting this article now may not necessarily be the best idea. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mette Karlsvik

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and only has one semi-reliable source. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails both WP:BIO. Also failed to find enough reliable sources for this person. Please note that the article's subject's Twitter is protected. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What on Earth does the statement that "the article's subject's Twitter is protected", whatever that means, have to do with the question of whether she is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of major literature award, Tarjei Vesaas' debutantpris, which alone would vouchsafe notability. __meco (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her first novel won the national award for first novels, that makes her notable enough. I've improved the article using the Bokmål one so that the statement in the lede that she is a journalist is now supported and so that her academic credentials and the nature of the external links are clearer. One of the latter turned out to be best used as a ref. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to be a major emerging Norwegian writer with a bevy of awards for her first novel. Am I missing something? Vrivers (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Murdough}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirin Jansen}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crespin Adanguidi}}