Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
El Unique (talk | contribs)
23 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcorconazo (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiaki Shibata}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiaki Shibata}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 10:47, 7 October 2010

< 6 October 8 October >

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 no consensus. –MuZemike 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcorconazo

AfDs for this article:
Alcorconazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

like page deleted Boqueronazo. El Unique (talk) 10:45, 7 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.
  • Keep - I completely disagree with the intent to delete articles because some users will angry others or want to keep a page to harass opponents. This page should not be deleted because of Boqueronazo was eliminated in retaliation, this should be a serious encyclopedia and not motivated to feelings of some editors. It should restore Boqueronazo page and people which dislike it not visit. I am fan of Real Madrid but I don't like that people edit in this wiki by fanaticism, one must be as objective, not create articles to harass, nor to compensate or deleted as retaliation, I like the serious things and I always try to edit objectivity and not get carried away by my sympathy to certain clubs Raul-Reus (talk) 2:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC+1)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiaki Shibata

Toshiaki Shibata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see any indication that this artist meets the basic criteria for notability. Only relevant Ghits are from his own website, directories like LinkedIn and commercial sites. Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 7 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 keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Teitel

AfDs for this article:
Yaakov Teitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was the subject of news coverage for crimes but is not inherently notable. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deletion review (WP:DRV) here I correct: here, 2009 November 13. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question re BLP1E is: if there is a one-event, what is that one event? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 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 keep. –MuZemike 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Solitudes (Canadian society)

Two Solitudes (Canadian society) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since January 2010. Appears to be a turn of phrase rather than a socio-political analysis; as well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Social Sciences. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article when I heard on the radio that Michaëlle Jean had used the term in her first address as Governor General of Canada. I can't find the transcript for this, unfortunately. The refs, such as they are, would point to an earlier origin of the term, one that she mentioned, and it would seem that a merge to her article would not appear to be the preferable result for this AfD.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The person that coined the term is whom I believe Steve Dufour is refering to ...Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments on Google searches:
  1. Your Google.ca search is a general web search for  "Two Solitudes" Anglophone OR Francophone.  Arguably, some non-Canadian media might not use "-phone" terms; while valid words, they are not as widely used outside Canada. An American or Australian newspaper might use "English-speaking" and "French-speaking" instead.
  2. My Google.com search was for  "Two Solitudes"  only in Google News (both current and archives); this is a better source of references that meet our reliable sources requirements than a general web search. Even if only 1/10 of these hits refer to the concept of this article and not the book or some other usage of the phrase, that still leaves us with dozens of news articles citing this idea. That's a lot and certainly much more than enough to meet our notability requirements.
  3. Google Scholar, another source of authoritative references, turns up hundreds of hits in the 2 languages when I search for  "Two Solitudes" Canada  on Google.ca's Google Scholar site.
  4. "Two Solitudes" is a very distinctive phrase; I don't think I've ever heard it in anything other than a Canadian context.
  5. In looking at Google search results, it's important to look at the quality of the results. 2 authoritative sources meeting our reliable sources requirements trump 1000 blog references. I encourage folks to sample some of the individual hits in the Google.com results I've provided here and in my earlier comments.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, people should evaluate every Source for relevance rather than rely on WP:GHITS. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that a better merge/redirect candidate might be Multiculturalism_in_Canada#Biculturalism, eh?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • no not merge into Criticism of multiculturalism or Multiculturalism_in_Canada since this goes to the fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis, rather than the policy of multicultrualism in modern Canada. Keep since this political concept is frequently in the news and in research, as well as in Canadian popular culture, per the many RSes that various people have previously indicated in this AFD. It is not criticism of multiculturalism since it is a term used to indicate the lack of cross-cultural communication between the two founding groups of European colonists who founded Canada, which predate the policies of multiculturalism. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "political concept" is a criticism of Multiculturalism. This was a simplified way of defining a complex political concept in terms the masses could understand. Would this article not be violating NotInherited since it was coined from a Novel, and again later, from a Film Title? What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reality described by the term "two solitudes" existed before the policies of multiculturalism were enacted. The novel the term derives from only labels a reality that existed before the novel's creation. The novel, created in 1945, predates multiculturalism policies by three decades. Your statement that it is a criticism of multiculturalism seems faulty. The "two solitudes" have existed since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, in the 1750s. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because this term predated the current "political concept" does not change the fact that they are still talking about the same "political concept". Who cares if the novel predates the concept. That only signifies the incubation period for the concept to crystallize and become properly named. The term Black hole went through the same process (originally called a Dark Star), but it was still the same thing. What are people describing when they use this term?
No, a black hole is not a dark star (Newtonian mechanics). Did you know what you were using as an analogy before using them? A dark star is an object with a definite surface, which is still a star, but whose escape velocity is greater than light speed, a black hole is a singularity, a totally different concept.
We know that now, yes... but in 1796 they were all 1 thing. Names may change, but the concept is the same. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it isn't. There are many concepts that are similar to black holes, some of which have solid surfaces, a black hole is not one of them, a dark star is. They only way they could be said to be the same concept is if you ignore all the properties of these two classes of objects and only focus on the escape velocity being greater than lightspeed. Are you doing that with "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes"? Only focusing on a single aspect, without looking at any other aspect? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your actually going to continue this point, I will refine it then. In 1796, the only concept they had to describe a class of objects was as "a gravity well so strong light could not escape". They did not have the science to distinguish the differences your argument assumes that they did. With "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" I am wanting to find a policy based reason to keep the Article after finding "What are people describing when they use this term??". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy of multiculturalism was created by the Trudeau government. Trudeau was not Prime Minister in the 1940's, he became PM in the 1970's. The term "two solitudes" was applied to an existing political reality, the two non-interacting communities of francophones and anglophones, that inhabitted Upper Canada and Lower Canada. There was no real "multiculturalism" in the environment prior to the 1960's. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A policy with that name was created then yes. But it was not created because of a sudden, new problem. The situation had been in existance long before the policy gave it an official name. Just because they gave it a official name does not mean they were talking about something different, or else the Policy would have been called 2Solitudes. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" signifies, are you being facetious? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to point out earlier, A Google search for something like this term is very difficult. The search you have just provided does not focus on this term's meaning. It is also bringing in every person that has ever used the term in another context[13][14], Photograph title/caption[15], 2 sides of something/anything[16], every review of the Book and/or Film and every bibliography of Mr. MacLennan, whom was a Cultural icon of Canadian history, and widely discussed in a variety of forums and contexts. In my view, just pointing to a WP:Bignumber in Google on this topic runs deeply afoul of WP:GYNOT & WP:COMMONPHRASE. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neat to see someone comment on everyone comments...The problem i have is that Redirects do not show-up in Internet search (they are not categorized) ....So unless we have that article title ..noone will ever come to Wikipidia to find out about the topic..So in the interests of the encyclopedia and the fact that are main principle is to spread knowledge...I say keep it as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because what is being proposed here will not help our readers and in fact will make sure they dont come to wiki to find knowledge on this topic. In the old days of Wiki this would have been filled under common sense....There are rules for everything that must be implemented in a way to help our readers not drive them away. Moxy (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exit2DOS2000, we did read your comments about Google searches earlier -- "As I tried to point out earlier…", "a more truthful search would be…" (personally, as the person posting the presumably "less truthful" search, that comment kind of stung). I posted those Google searches primarily for their content -- their lists of potentially useful links -- not for their numbers. And yes, the majority of these links such as your picture caption are not relevant but 1/10 of a large number still yields a rich list. Skimming that remaining tenth indicates there are many articles and scholarly papers that specifically look at the Two Solitudes concept, usually for English/French Canadian societies but sometimes extending it to the Anglo/First Nations divide. While the article is just a stub, Two Solitudes is a concept, not just a definition, which needs expansion, not elimination. This article needs similar treatment to that of the US' "Melting pot" and other, analogous concepts covered in substantive articles such as "Hyphenated American", "More Irish than the Irish themselves","Bangsa Malaysia", "Generation gap", etc. -- that is, unless we want to do away with those articles, too. There's a reason the Governor-General's use of that phrase and concept was instantly resonant for millions of Canadians. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is what I do not believe others understand. Various !votes opine "Two Solitudes is a concept", it is not the concept. Multiculturalism is the concept. "Two Solitudes" was the term a man unwittingly coined in his criticism of the situation as he saw it. Just because the term Multiculturalism was not in use at that time makes no difference. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, multiculturalism is a different concept. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, explain the differences in such terms that make one independantly notable and distinct from the other. So far, nobody has put forth a definition that is distinct from Multiculturalism, and I do not believe it can, thus my merge. Not every term smart people coin, deserves its own Article. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been reading what people have been writing here? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup and so far their has been "fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis", "its notable as per news.google.com", "Redirects do not show-up in Internet search", "referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship", "iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase" and "multiculturalism is a different concept", but not a single explanation of what it's distinction from Multiculteralism is, nor even a policy/essay amongst the lot. (exept WP:IAR). Nobody has given a basic awnser to the one question I have asked all along, What are people describing when they use this term? All pretty good reasons in my mind to now lable it WP:Fancruft of Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SO we have all given a reason Y it should not be deleted (you simply ignore them or find ways to dismiss them) you keep saying again and again and again the same thing..You seem to think that your view is more important then all the others here and now if things dont go your way you plan to subvert this community decision by tagging the article. So realy your main goal is to delete articles from Wikipidia in any way possible regardless of what this community decision is? You my friend need to read Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule#So how does the reasonability rule apply to Wikipedia?. Multiculturalism deals with all the ethnic groups as a whole and the policies.... Two Solitudes is a term for just what has been happing between the English and French for centuries and would be the opposite of multiculturalism in its affect on Canadian culture. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be repeating myself if someone would give a clear, concise, explanation of What are people describing when they use this term? that stands up to scrutiny. I do not think my view is more important, I simply will not be browbeaten into accepting arguments that have no merit or contradict one another. What have I tagged? I voted for Merge, not delete or did you just not care to notice that fact. What in Reasonability Rules do you believe I have contraviened? Did you mean "it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies" (AHEM... WP:NPA Comment on the content, not on the contributor) Your last sentence contradicts itself. Clarify the thought, find a Cite, and put it in the Article, something anyone here has yet to do. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we show you a link or two or three we will not agree on this as you have invested so much time and effort into your point. I should have jumped out of this long ago as the others did and should have let the votes speak for the majority view. BTW heres a copy of the book Two Solitudes its a good read a will help clarify the situation alot. This book and its topic we studied at the High school level in Canada during the 1980's and it looks like its still a part of the curriculum in some schools. Moxy (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This could easily develop into a solid article. It's frequently referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship and it's been the basis of much scholarly work. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism and merging is even worse than deletion. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I can't see any good reason why this was even proposed for deletion....now axiomatic and iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase and as an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 10 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 Redirect and merge as determined by further discussion. Consensus is that this should not be an article, but more discussion may be needed to decide what to do witht he content. I'm going to editorially redirect it to List of Star Trek characters: A-F#D. This can be changed if needed per any discussion, and any useful content can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Duras

House of Duras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has never had references. It is written entirely in-universe and demonstrates zero real-world notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:10, 7 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drobyshevski

Edward Drobyshevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives no 3rd party references. List of publications do not determine notability for the purposes of wikipedia and google searches provide little information other than the publication references. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the article is duplicated at Daemon (astrophysics), which was created by the same author. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I nominated the article for PROD previously, and the PROD was contested by User:Phil Bridger. I welcome more input into this discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notability due to having a planet named after him. (Is this a reasonable criteria?) "Minor Planet (4009) Drobyshevskij 1977 EN1. Discovered 1977 March 13 by N. S. Chernykh at Nauchnyj. Named in honor of Ehduard Mikhajlovich Drobyshevskij, physicist and astrophysicist at the Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, author of some original cosmological ideas and theories of the origin of the planets and the minor bodies of the solar system, also known for his research on the magnetic fields of the sun and other stars. (M 19694) - Dictionary of Minor Planet Names - Fringe nature of current views/publications does not invalidate earlier notability - and seems to me to add its own form of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak delete. The googlescholar results[20] are fairly modest for someone with such a long research career. There are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc to indicate passing WP:PROF. Having a minor planet named after him is certainly interesting, but, in the absence of stronger evidence, is not quite sufficient, IMO, to establish academic notability. The nominator is correct that this also appears to be, at least in part, a WP:FRINGE case, which I think should raise the inclusion bar a little higher. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra sources: Looking round the web for Edward Drobyshevski - it seems to me his work on the Tunguska event seems to have got the most notice. The article doesn't really seem to mention this. I think Popular Mechanics referece for this is indicative of this stuff.
* http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/natural-disasters/4316464
and Ria Novosti
* http://www.rian.ru/science/20090330/166427555.html
The same in Google translate.
* Ria Novosti: Scientist: Tunguska catastrophe associated with the explosion of a hydrogen nucleus of comet
And his work on Giant pieces of Jupiter could kill all life on earth documented in Pravda
* http://www.pravda.ru/news/science/27-06-2008/273686-vzryv-0/
Are these the fringe things being refered too? They do seem to have attracted some notice - but don't seem too off the wall. Would adding comments on these and the references to the article help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Added popular media refs: I have added these refs to the article in case it might help(Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for this useful research. Unfortunately h index still only comes to 11 which is not really enough. GS should be excellent on mainstream publications in astronomy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question: This looks to me like on the basis of arguments here - might be going to fail WP:Prof - but seems to me having the mini-planent named after him (with the note about why) and the references to his "original" ideas discussed in Pravda and Popular Mechanics are "significant coverage" and are more than a trivial mentions in reliable sources and should be sufficient for general notability. Is the planet too trivial and Pravda and Pop mechanics not reliable or the articles not so important? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Little comment: The articles in Pravda, Ria Novosti and Popular Mechanics are about some of Drobyshevski's work and one's work can make one notable. This is our usual logic I think. If you were to read those kind of articles - you might want to look him up and I think that is where our encyclopedia is sometimes really useful. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 1 October 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) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems to be notable given the sources. The article could and should be improved. Even if his theories are wrong he still seems to be notable. I hope that there is not a prejudice against his article because he worked in the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little copy editting and the like in an attempt to help. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know whether he is regarded as orthodox or fringe in the field of astrophysics, that's not where I live. But if you search for Eduard Drobyshevsky you will come up with articles such as THIS 2008 PIECE IN THE ENGLISH EDITION OF PRAVDA citing him as an expert. I would be very, very, very hesitant to remove this one. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
Comment There's an issue here that has come up in other areas of wikipedia for which there is no easy answer. The views expressed in the linked article are clearly fringe. But they are cited in a "reliable" (I hold a low opinion on the reliability of pravda, but let's leave aside that argument for the time being) source. The mainstream and slightly out of mainstream media are happy to report fringe scientific theories. Since they are obscure theories however, there are no rebuttals published in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE states that fringe views should not be given undue weight. How can we avoid giving undue weight to a fringe theory covered in reliable sources, but for which a rebuttal is not available? In my mind, the solution is to delete such articles, especially when the fringe view itself is thinly sourced. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, more specific to this article, is someone being quoted in an article sufficient to establish notability? My impression based on WP:GNG is that it is not. There must be a reliable source that is substantially about the individual, not just their views. The asteroid citation is the only source that remotely qualifies, and I don't feel that it is adequate. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , first by precedent as namesake of a minor planet, second because of notable fringe scientific theorist. If someone's distinctive views are notable, they are notable. With the exception of media personalities, what is important about a person is the work or accomplishments that they are known for. If we have significant coverage of that, it's sufficient--people are not generally notable for the miscellaneous facts of his biography. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar

Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not feel that this an ad campaign local to New York City has garnered enough significant third-party coverage to warrant inclusion here. The coverage is mostly local, and the 2nd reference is a dead link, the 4th reference is to Amazon link to a song parody, which doesn't qualify as a source, and the 5th link only mentions Dan Smith briefly and doesn't offer significant coverage. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what's wrong with link #5. If you google for dan smith mike myers, it works, but accessing it through wikipedia doesn't. any ideas? Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I wasn't sure if WP:BIO was what applied here, since the article is more about his marketing campaign, and the coverage/success of it, as well as satires of it (such as on the Daily Show, which is what made me realize enough people knew about this campagin to create an article for it). I don't think Dan Smith is notable at all, but his guitar teaching campaign is. That's why I named it the way I did. I don't know if that changes your opinion or not, but I'm not actually sure which WP: section would apply to it in that case. Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only objection seems to be that it covers a regional ad campaign as opposed to a national one. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline against articles on topics of only regional notoriety. Furthermore, the New York metropolitan area is a region with a population greater than all but 58 countries (List of countries by population), so even that excuse seems thin. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Running a TV ad in New York City is insufficient to gain a permanent encyclopedia article. It is far less sufficient to Xerox a flyer and stick it to lamp posts in New York City. We are not here to aid someone's low budget advertising campaign by pretending that their appeal is of encyclopedic notability, just because folks in the one city have seen the flyers. Edison (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • As stated above, this article is not about the fact that he posted fliers. It is about the fact that his fliers were impressively successful, according to two independant news articles I found easily on google, spanning a period of 5 years. It is also about the fact that two clearly notable individuals have thought this individual noteworthy enough to reference in (1) an advertising campaign and (2) on television referencing the upcoming rally in Washington, DC. I am not creating articles for every individual who posts fliers in cities - but I will create one for someone who has been in print and online news articles, and referenced on national television. Tduk (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, this isn't about someone being notable for being a musician, this is an article about a notable and successful ad campaign that has been covered in print, online, and television media, and which even a very lazy google will give you lots of hits about. Smith's campaigns, as well as his teaching method and biographical info, are particularly covered in depth in the New York Times article and AOL Small Business article. This is a brand new article - under a month - and I think that with time people will contribute even more references to it - but as it stands it does indeed pass notability requirements. Tduk (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is a new article that needs work, further, I'm not sure it's properly named (perhaps it should be a biography?). In any case, the New York Times is a pretty hefty source, even if it is not a 'hard news' article. It is still independent and heavily devoted to him. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 09:24, 29 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) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Just because something is parodied doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. Also, as much notability can be claimed for this ad it's still very limited geographically to be notable to people from all over the world. man with one red shoe 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Tduk - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is puffery piece masquerading as an article. A single human interest story in 2005 and a single interview in 2010 does not pass threshold for notability. Notability for an the Ad campaigned i would expect substantial coverage from at least a dozen stories over these "many years" he has been doing this or at least a Marketing Journal article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than stating "this is puffery piece", could you explain why it is puffery? There is very little praise about Smith himself (some has recently been added, but you could simply remove that and make it a neutral POV). Your harsh language and harsh, inappropriate tagging of the article make me wonder about COI, which is frustrating as the nominator also seemed to show a vendetta against me, as this seems to have been nominated because of an argument I had with the nominator over speedy deletion policy. I have been trying to WP:AGF, and thank everyone who has made keep votes, but it is hard to keep a clear head with such accusatory tones and gratuitous mistagging (with errors) of the article. I have addressed the typos and left in the tags that were appropriate. Tduk (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a lot more references, including a link to the Jon Stewart video clip on the official Comedy Central site. Tduk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All most of which I just Ripped out becuase they were all blogs by non-notables. which Leaves us With, One AOL News, One NY mag, and One NYT article. You have a single mention on the daily show. Two primary sources claiming a song was written by some one that again is doubtful in notability and a cite from Dan Smiths website. I am becoming extremely doubtful of your ability to evaluate sources as one reference i removed was simply a link to another site with a picture of his poster. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upon closer examination its not even his site but some random site where people are poking fun at him, and accusing him of beating up jews beacuase they are "homo". which is probably a BLP violation just linking to with out trying to use it as source! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I don't understand policy, but isn't it a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to rip out a lot of references you don't agree without even putting them on the discussion page? I'm still not clear on your interpretation of the policy, but none of the sources presented controversial material - in fact, you left IN the material and simply removed the sources, which does not make sense with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. I know we are supposed to Wikipedia:Be bold, but doesn't it look a bit odd for you to be behaving in this way? If this is not the place for this discussion, please respond on the Talk page for the article. Tduk (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly enough. If someone votes delete on an article and then removes content from it, is there a relevant policy for that? Tduk (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that's not quite true. A person could vote "delete" and then remove valid references - and it's possible no one would notice, and then that would influence the final decision. This would be an action in bad faith. There isn't really a similar action someone could perform for _adding_ references - it is much easier for someone to evaluate references that are there than to evaluate things that have been removed... but this isn't the place to discuss that. Tduk (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually isn't. If someone adds 'unreliable' references, this would be obvious to anyone who looked at the article and then looked at the references section. If someone removed decent references, this would only be obvious to anyone who looked at the history of the page and checked everything that had been (added and) removed since the AfD was begun, two weeks ago. There _is_ a difference. Tduk (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to put out that at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states that Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). So, one is not supposed to be making significant, let alone controversial edits, to the article without noting so here. Tduk (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Given the valid opposing viewpoints mentioned post and before the first relisting, I still do not perceive clear consensus here. Hence this second relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anybody argue that this will be in any way relevant and notable in one or two years? Notability if very shaky even for present (it's supported by blogs and forum references) and obviously this is unknown for anybody outside NY, but can anybody claim this will be notable for years to come? This seems to me like useless trivia, very localized, which lacks importance and notability. man with one red shoe 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many keep votes who seem to have argued exactly that. I don't think they're watching this, though, so if I wanted their opinion on the matter I'd read what they posted as the explanation of the keep votes. Saying "notability is very shaky" seems to be misleading, as there are two actual biographical articles from print notable sources, and a few other mentions as well. He has also had an effect on advertising campaigns for notable media. Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is what you are asking people to argue (relevance in the future?) in any way related to notability requirements? Tduk (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how that applies at all. WP:ONEVENT states that Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days.. There is an important distinction between being known for one event, and one thing. Tduk (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not so much 1 event coverage but lack of coverage at all. We have two sources that cover the subject once with five years in between 5 years apart. Then we have one source thats literally a short paragraph which only got covered because john mayer was not really offering Guitar lessons. Nor am i convinced that daily show is a good source either as they make a jokes about all different topics daily and one trivial mention does not seem to establish notability. Nor does citing a Track in an album as a reference as that WP:OR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the very fact that we have sources from 2005 and 2010 demonstrates that's it's not something that it's not a case of WP:BLP1E. So we have a subject that's been covered by reliable sources, over the span of 5 years and who was parodied by multiple other notable subjects, amongst them a movie that will surely still exist a couple of years. I think those are enough reasons to keep the article. Sourcing problems can be solved by editing. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 9 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) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AB Tech

AB Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student group at a university. No third party sources to establish notability. Article is just a 1 sentence stub w/o any real information. GrapedApe (talk) 01:41, 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) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:18, 7 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 no consensus. Although at an editorial level, I would agree with Mkativerata and would have ivoted similarly, while closing this AfD, I do not see consensus being clear. At the same time, should this decision be perceived to be wrong, kindly do contact me on my talk page. There is no prejudice against opening up an early AfD on this article in the near future in case the article is not improved. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia)

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A never-registered ultra-minor splinter of a very minor party. Gained some limited coverage because of Rudd's nephew standing, but the entire reference list is composed of party press releases and one article in an Indian magazine. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 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) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
Anticipating objections, this is what I'm on about: An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. * * * Policies and guidelines aim to describe community norms. When a norm changes there is usually a specific discussion. However when the way it works in practice as seen by experienced users is poorly described, the policy is often updated to reflect it better. (from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion as the current discussions do not seem to have reached a consensus stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the artist Rudd's article. The sources I looked at are either self-published, or legally obliged to take notice of the party's existence, or sources that are only tangentially related to the subject (a story about X that mentions the name of the party in passing). Wikipedia is not here to "document history", and I'm very nervous about basing an article about a political party on sources that do nothing more than name the organization. For example, I saw nothing in the sources that indicated that anything in the ==Campaigns== section was an official action of the organization, rather than a private action that happened to involve two members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 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 redirect to The Marcy Brothers. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal Marcy

Kendal Marcy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Super-thin notability. No non-trivial mentions found. Only sources are some sort of Freemasonry site and IMDb. Notability is not inherited from Brad Paisley. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:07, 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:13, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Mix Club

Disco Mix Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very low on sources, minimal notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:13, 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) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:07, 7 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 no consensus. Due to lack of participation, I do not see silent consensus here for any particular close. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someplace Closer to Here

Someplace Closer to Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related album article:

Modern Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This band achieved some notability, but they also have articles for two albums that do not meet notability requirements. No reliable third-party sources or reviews can be found for the albums, just the usual lyric, download, and social network sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 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) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Lapush. As said in WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:06, 7 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) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist (album series)

Playlist (album series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. No sources, just a directory. Very few of the albums have proven notable enough for their own articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/16_Biggest_Hits and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:33, 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) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:05, 7 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 merge to University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Medicine

Penn Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Governing board of University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. No sources to show notability. Not notable. GrapedApe (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep Just click on the news link above for evidence of notability. --Kvng (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the case to me. I'm a long way from Penn though. But if you are right, then why not just do a merge into University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine? --Kvng (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that as a result.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 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) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:05, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dowden Health Media

Dowden Health Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN org. Only primary sources. No doubt that it exists, but no evidence of 3rd party in-depth coverage MrCleanOut (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the article creator: Your links appear to be extended business directory listings, info that is copied more or less uncritically from company documents, or superficial info on an acquisition. Searching more, this [24] comes up, but it's basically a press release, full of puff. Where is the independent significant coverage that's required for a stand-alone article? The article contents could merged to some target, not necessarily having its own article. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link most certainly is not a business directory but a newspaper article. This doesn't seem to be "just a press release" either. btobonline.com has multiple articles on Dowden. And this is just the first page of the results of a "news" search. There's more, of course. --Crusio (talk) 11:11, 29 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) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:04, 7 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 Snow Keep/Withdrawn by nominator.. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lambert

AfDs for this article:
Alex Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person was on American Idol, so notablity is fleeting on this one. Almost all of the references on the article go to blogs of some sort, so none of it is verifiable. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though we have a slew of SPAs (single-purpose accounts) doing work here, I am satisfied with the work that has been done and the page is now to the bare limits of notability and verifiability. I suggest all people with SPAs to not use them for that purpose again. I withdraw my nomination for deletion and ask this be closed by an admin or non-SPA user as "keep". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Person was on American Idol and is NOW on a completely different show which is notable as well as being an artist under the 19 Entertainment label with a future album and career, he IS notable. But, I suppose you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant because they're not on the show anymore. If you want different sources we can give them to you even though the sources are not all "blogs", but forgive us if Harvard scholars don't report American Idol news. And you're nominating an article for deletion which was highly edited (blanked in areas) minutes before your nomination. So I'm wondering here why the solution isn't editing to fix instead of deleting major portions then nominating for deletion. The person who made all the major edits is also apparently well known for doing these major edits and then putting warnings all over the page for things he has done himself. So if you're nominating the page for deletion after his edits which makes the article incomplete and poorly worded then I object. Also, calling me a sock/meat puppet just because this is my 1st article doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter. But, thanks for tagging me as such. Forgive me if I haven't gotten around to editing other articles. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Gollymolly1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    You weren't tagged as a sock/meatpuppet; you were marked as a single-purpose account. The other marked SPAs who have contributed to this discussion are the suspected sock/meatpuppets. If you make a strong, policy-based argument, it's irrelevant whether your account has been marked as being a SPA or not (though obvious sock/meatpuppets will still be disregarded). So far you haven't provided any convincing argument either, however; "he was on american idol" doesn't itself meet our general notability guideline, "you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant..." is not a valid argument because we don't keep/delete articles because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that the main contributor is an editor in good standing is irrelevant. Take a look at some of the policies regarding notability and decide for yourself whether the article meets our policies, and then base your argument on our policy. If you simply argue to keep something because WP:ILIKEIT, your argument will be diregarded because wikipedia is not a ballot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they are not MY "sock/meat puppets" I have no idea who any of these people are, so sorry if you feel that way. Like I said this is my FIRST article, so that should not limit my opinion or be put against me. Anyways, according to the general notability guideline he HAS significant coverage, by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. The person who reported the article for deletion did so minutes after the original article was highly edited by someone else. I've fixed said persons major edits, added more reputable sources, and even included all suggestions for sources posted below me. So, despite yours and my sarcastically witty conversation, the person is still notable. If you read the article, you'll notice he WAS on American Idol, is NOW on a completely different show, WROTE AND PERFORMS THEME SONG for said show, IS CURRENTLY a 19 entertainment recording artist.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not expressing any opinion one way or another on this AfD as I haven't done any research into the article at this point, I'm simply pointing out that if you can make a policy-based argument, that's what your argument should be based on. I'd also recommend reading the concerns of the delete !vote(s) and directly addressing those concerns. Obviously I can't speak for you, but on my part at least, my advice was not sarcastic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you responded to me before I edited my comment to provide examples of policy and explanation on how I fixed the "delete" person's worries. Like I said the person reported the article AFTER someone majorly edited it in the middle of my editing.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Notability fleeting? No more so than any of the other ex-American Idols. In fact, less so than of other Idols, as person is currently on a new legitimate show (which has an approved Wikipedia entry), and has received a great deal of attention from numerous press sites. It should be possible to find valid references where missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.82.61 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 62.1.82.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep seems to be a bit of a BLP2E, but notable enough. A Google News archives search for "Alex Lambert" +Idol shows that reliable sources do exist, such as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suggest also searching news archives for "Alex Lambert" +"If I Can Dream" for more current reliable sources regarding notability, such as this and this. Also would like to point out that references for other ex-American Idols also often mostly consist of blogs or entertainment "news" sites, thus do not see why they would not be allowed or adequate in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.165.0 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 88.218.165.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Amini

Max Amini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for 18 months, but concerns remain. I can't find the significant coverage we require - ImDb verifies a few bit parts, but in my opinion that doesn't put him over the threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 21 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 Nomination withdrawn as heading to WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of PDF software

List of PDF software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there already exists this template Template:PDF_readers or would be better served by a new category. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— UncommonID (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. This is not a mere list of links. It is organized, contains information on license and platform, and a description. It is an aid to navihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Formatgation for the articles that make up the list in a way that categories cannot be & is consistent with both our written policy & our history of keeping software comparisons/lists when they've been brought up to AfD. --Karnesky (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came across this article this evening and found it quite useful, so perhaps this is something of an WP:ILIKEIT comment. However, while it certainly isn't a perfect article, it does provide more information than would a category or template in terms of descriptions of what software does and sub-categorisation by operating system. --Kateshortforbob talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think of this as information that really belongs in the Portable Document Format article but has been moved into a separate subarticle because of size and weight concerns. I don't know if that's how it was created, but it would make sense. More than just a list of links, and definitely worth keeping. I am not sure what the formal criteria are, but if they allow all the crap that has been featured but not this, they are badly broken. Hans Adler 18:12, 11 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Cherry

Travis Cherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity piece by a sound engineer who appears not to satisfy WP:GNG. Article is full of name-dropping and other unverified credits, and is cites 3 sources, none of which demonstrate his notability Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:49, 7 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 and redirect to The X Factor (UK series 7).

There is a rough, approaching firm, consensus to delete here. The debate is about whether the retention of the article is precluded by WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS, both being policies. Some arguments on either side have to be given little weight: in particular, several keep opinions made either assertions that have no relationship to any accepted inclusion standards, while others argued general notability, which is not the issue (BLP1E, and arguably NOTNEWS, will preclude articles even where there is "significant coverage").

The dispute about BLP1E and NOTNEWS generally revolves around whether this is "one event" and a mere "news item" without enduring impact and coverage. Some degree of crystal ball-gazing is inevitable here by both sides. But at this stage there is a consensus that BLP1E, and to a less clear extent NOTNEWS, apply on the basis that (a) (for BLP1E) the subject is only notable for the one event; and (b) (for NOTNEWS) there is no evidence of enduring notability. I note the large number of early delete !votes. These early !votes may have otherwise been overtaken by events (eg if coverage and further events snowballed during the AfD). But even discarding the first few days of the AfD the consensus among the discussion would still have been to delete, indicating that after 14 days little had changed.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamu Nhengu

Gamu Nhengu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

About as WP:BLP1E as it can get; also WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think there is any realistic chance of historical notability based on what we have so far here. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK, I voted delete. WP:NOTNEWS. However, I agree with those who state the article should be kept until the next show. If she does not make a return, there is no point in keeping it. Even if she does, reality TV show contestants do not seem noteworthy WP:BLP1E. If they win, and/or go on to have a successful career, that is the time for them to have an article. 86.156.0.137 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes also the delete crowd here points towards certain "wikipedia rules" that doesnt even apply in this particular case/article. While the keep crowd points towarda actual opinions and standards. But that is just my opinion on the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS not apply here, in your opinion? AnemoneProjectors 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HARMLESS AnemoneProjectors 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I initiated this article not because of how outstanding Nhengu's talent may or may not be - opinions differ - or any prediction of lasting eminence on her own account, which obviously requires the verdict of time, but because of the exceptional phenomenon surrounding her rejection, which goes well beyond the scope of the article about the show itself. Only if you have been consuming British popular culture (in which I include the saturation of everyday gossip) in this past few weeks can you understand how out of the ordinary this has been. No other reality TV contestant has engendered a greater spontaneous public campaign (which extends beyond Facebook) to change a decision; an extraordinary half the residents (5/ 10k) in her county have now signed a petition to the British Government to allow her to stay in the UK; and it has thrown up a most significant example of newspaper double-speak where those tabloids that most enthusiastically fan anti-immigrant rhetoric have been the cheerleaders for keeping her in the country - many commentators have said that it has given a more human face to immigrants and asylum seekers. All that is worthy of note even in the unlikely event that she disappears without trace. There is therefore an argument for making the article one on 'The campaign for reality TV contestant Gamu Nhengu', but my judgement was that that would be a considerably more clumsy way of gathering the information, given that the story does revolve around her, seems far from over and may well produce further twists. Llahgob (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Initially notable for one incident but subsequent events have occured which are also notable, as debate exists about the status of children of people in the UK on visas, and she has received far more newspaper column inches than practically all of the finalists combined. As the article was created to identify a 'notable contestant', she qualifies. There is also the social media campaign on both Facebook and Twitter, and the accusations of producer interference in contestant selection within so-called 'reality' programming which make her a notable person in the UK. User:Apex204 (User talk:Apex204) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple events which concern the subject directly and so BLP1E does not apply. This is not routine ephemeral news and so NOTNEWS does not apply. Instead we have massive notability per WP:GNG and notability does not expire so this person will still be well documented in sources in perpetuity. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put any usable content in The X Factor (UK series 7)#Controversy and criticism. Not especially notable or historically significant event/person, article is the result of recentism etc. Leave it a few months and if anything significant has sprung out of this it will become apparent. This stuff happens, and is reported on, all over the place. It has made national media simply by virtue of being associated with X-factor. Best dealt with on the X-factor page. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic violation of BLP 1E and NOT TABLOID. I generally support Wikipedia covering all significant news events but not transient internet phenomena of no possible continuing interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No possible continuing interest? This seems a bold prediction as it is my experience that, in such cases, continuing coverage is almost certain. If continued interest can be demonstrated in a year or more from now, will you undertake to restore the article if it has been deleted, so that it may be developed further? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly doubt it, it is already out of mainstream news, relegated to the middle pages of the tabloids (if mentioned at all). Feel free to revisit the article in a year! But I doubt you will have seen continued interest; people get bored, the media moves on. Unless the mount a significant legal challenge to avoid deportation (which is unlikely, the home office seems to have a cut 'n dried case) or some other big thing happens (i.e. she is executed or something) then it's a storm in a tea cup --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I'm giving a rationale for this relisting. Although the number of commentators in this AfD is beyond doubt enough, the discussion seems to not have come to a definite consensus. Seeing polarised comments for keep and delete, and also viewing a few votes that are illogical, I have to relist this AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly non-notable WP:BLP1E. Contestants in The X-Factor and other reality TV shows are generally not notable enough for their own pages, let alone those who failed to get through the earlier rounds. In this case, this was a story the tabloids ran with for a few days, but they've now got bored and moved on; it's already yesterday's news. There's no case for long-term notability here. Robofish (talk)

09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: Although the subject of this discussion achieved notoriety via the X Factor, her notability extends far beyond the TV show now. The topic of Gamu Nhengu, both her singing and her on-going visa problems, continue to make headlines around the world - and are also being discussed at the highest world political levels too. A search of Google News [26] shows she is still the topic of scores of global media articles - so WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS do not apply. Indeed, her widespread notability appears to qualify her for WP:GNG.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename if necessary - but deletion is not an option here. In my opinion it is not a BLP1E, given that there are multiple events connected to the coverage in sources, which is wide. In any case let us remember that BLP1E is almost never a reason to outright delete: the policy says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - Therefore, in the case consensus is assessed for BLP1E to apply, the article can be renamed and edited to switch the focus to the event (which clearly passes GNG) -as it has been practice in multiple other cases (e.g. Disappearance of Maura Murray). Since it is an issue demanding only editing, per deletion policy, we do not delete. --Cyclopiatalk 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A singularly bad example; it was a marginal event at the time, but the ongoing media coverage (spanning the whole lot of years between then and now) solidify it as historically significant. I doubt this will be mentioned again after Xmas (if not before). If it is things can be reconsidered easily. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical significance is not something we can fathom and is not a criteria of our notability guidelines. Notability is forever: once something has been picked up by sources, it is notable, it doesn't cease to be so because public's attention vanishes. --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether we consider this a BLP1E (which I do, very much) or a BIO. In the former case we do ask for historical significance or a lasting effect. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Massively notable with widespread on going media coverage per editor Myosotis Scorpioides. The fact she's attracting coverage week after week in TV , magazines and newspapers ought to be enough to persuade folk she has enduring notability, even if they can see a reason. But just to be helpful , heres three very significant aspects to her story, which also show BLP1E doesn't apply. Shes a rare case of a reality TV evoking so much passion that there has been multiple death threats against those who voted her off the show. It's a notable case of an online campaign having real world impact. The fate of her family and the related public debate is an interesting bellwether of opinion in British society - which will be the strongest out of the poplar desire for tougher immigration procedures v the human appeal to let them stay? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still believe that Gamu is notable beyond her original X-factor appearance. Her face is seen almost daily in newspapers and her story has been spread trough out the world. This article is a special case as she might not be notable for her x-factor appearance alone, but the effects afterwards has made her notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

typical delete sayers, pointing towards Wikipedia standards that can be interpreted in different ways. Also its as usual never any deeper explainations to their stand except the usual "non notable television star" totally disregarding other factors. Like here above. This is a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person failed a reality tv competition. Fans created a facebook group. There's some vague rumors of deportations and racism reported by tabloids. That's it. All of this is part of the same topic; reliable sources cover this person in the context of the X-Factor bid. Yes, failures can go on to do more and become notable independent of the original event, e.g. William Hung. But when the coverage of Nhengu is being blared by the likes of entertainmentwise.com and little else, there's not much one can do to justify an article. This is why we have 1E and not-news guidelines; so that one-and-done news blips don't get an article in an encyclopedia forevermore. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To everyone invoking NOTNEWS, which, remember, is not meant to delete every news from the encyclopedia but to avoid covering "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", I want to quote the wise words of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not." --Cyclopiatalk 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. NOTNEWS says quite explicitly: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and then goes on to list some examples. NOTNEWS does not list explicitly what we should disclude, instead it asks us to consider the enduring notability of people and events. This is a regular mis-interpretation of NOTNEWS that is sometimes used to try and incorrectly undermine it. None of these are hard and fast rules, simply advisories with which we try to make an informed decision. In terms of the article, BLP1E helps establish this as suitable as an event, not a bio, and under that context it is not suitable for an individual article. However it may be (and indeed I agree is) significant for inclusion in the X Factor article. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia that the Keep sayers has to establish a huge amount of reasons for their opinion, while Delete sayers never have too. Gamu is notable way beyond her X-factor appearance and that is why I said Keep. And I will stick to that.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this is starting to look like a No Consensus Afd. Because facts has been brought on that proves both sides of the argument pro or against Gamus article. The only reasonable thing to do would be to end this Af as No consensus and then if nothing more happens in 6 months time then bring a second Afd discussion on.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, you're starting to verge on disruptive. We've all made quite extensive cases - both for keep and delete. Either actually contribute more information or sit back, don't rehash you're same arguments over and over (this is explicitly discouraged). It could actually harm your argument. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucberar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject has notability way beyond original appearance on the X Factor, given her status as an asylum seeker example amongst the British media and British public. Also notable in terms of massive public online support potentially impacting on her citizenship in the UK. This potentially has importance as a piece of social and immigration history. Kafuffle (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly agree to keep the page. I do believe that the Gamu page is completely nobel. She has had number of headlining pages in the paper's - plus a appearing on one of the biggest shows in the UK, i think that the page is now nobel. L.Geee 14:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E -- roleplayer 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep!!! The whole world is talking about this girl.Not just her singing talent but political issues, immigration issues,racism, media issues internet groups,ect.... People are going to want to know about her, they need somewhere decent yo get their information from!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.77.1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per the comments above. This article indicates that she has not heard from anyone on the X Factor, including Mr Cowell, so is likely to be deported back to Zimbabwe. Once that happens I doubt very much we'll hear of her again, so not notable --5 albert square (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I absolutely believe this article should be deleted. If this person was worthy of a wikipedia article, every TV blow-in would be on wikipedia. She got her 15 mins of fame, she will soon be forgotten and this article will be of use to no-one. Seriously consider this; how many people would you think will type Gamu Nhengu into a search by next year? Heggyhomolit (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What people will search next year is completely irrelevant for our inclusion standards. All what matters is if we have multiple secondary sources coverage. --Cyclopiatalk 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likely quite many as she according to the article and a source could be shot if she returns to her homeland. Also her possible deportation in itself will have people looking for this article about Gamu,.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply meant that she is not worthy of an article of her own as she will be forgotten by then. I do however believe that any information about her should be included on the X Factor 2010 page.Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even past contestants who made it ONTO the live shows and the final don't have their own articles. They had media coverage during the shows but they were not worth articles on, and have their own section in the show-related articles. And yes nobody will care or remember this in a short while. Dollvalley (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet the GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extreme case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. She is notable for one single event, being on the X factor. What is more, she failed to qualify for the finals. Even most contenstants who do qualify for the finals of this annual show don't have Wikipedia articles, and Ms Nhengu is no different from the large number of people who did not make the final. The fact that many people thought her to be good does not make her more notable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two weeks on, as the initiator of this article, it seems to me that the original justification for its existence has only grown. Those who repeatedly point to Nhengu's personal relative 'non-notability' or transient fame are correct (currently - although the latest rumours suggest she has several offers of recording contracts), but are missing the point - the article is NOT here primarily because of her mere appearance on X Factor, how 'good' a singer she is or is not, or her 'failure' to get to the finals (none of which, alone, justify it), but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, and continues as I write. It is not a footnote 'about' the TV show, but a separate and notable phenomenon involving thousands of articles in reputable publications in numerous countries, and a variety of topics and connections; her name seemed to me the most convenient hook to hang all that on. Hence, while there remains an argument to change the title, deletion of this body of information at this stage would seem to irrationally discount all that evidence. Llahgob (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — Llahgob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
but the exceptional public *reaction* to that which has been widespread, international, involves numerous issues not least the hot topic of immigration and asylum in the UK, see this is my main reason for rejecting the subjects notability. It's not really "international".. not at least from my observation anyway. As to the asylum issue, certainly it is controversial, and there has been some public reaction. But not a lot and the case is fairly cut and dried against them; she will almost certainly be deported today. My problem, though, is this; no reporting has dealt in any depth with the "controversy", mostly it was outraged fans (from what I can pick up), which is fair enough, but I don't really see anything particularly notable, legally game changing or otherwise of enduring public interest. *shrug* --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The public's reaction is not a reason for this article to stay, quite the opposite. If it is the reaction of the public to this The X Factor (UK)-event that is notable, not the person, then that reaction should be mentioned where it belongs, in the article on this year's season The X Factor (UK series 7). As a matter of fact, it is already dealt with in that article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for its existence? It looks to me like the vast majority of votes here are to delete the article. People get deported all the time, and as for UK asylum and immigration issues; I don't think this case has any encyclopaedic purpose. I really don't see a place for this article on wikipedia, and I stand by my original vote to delete. As a matter of interest, this subject has not been in the media all week.Heggyhomolit (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the comment above, I read Swedish, Finnish, German, French and Italian media daily and have never seen Nhengu mentioned even once. I do not say that fame in only one country would not be sufficient (provided that the person is notable in that country, which I don't think Nhengu is), but those advocating "keep" by claiming "international coverage" seem to overstate their case.Jeppiz (talk) 10:12, 19 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Yap

Joey Yap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, advertising, {{tone}} issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 7 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Halim

Nina Halim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue; notability is not inherited --ZhongHan (Email) 06:17, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chin

Eddie Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:16, 7 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce And The Boys

Joyce And The Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue, only assertion of notability is unreferenced. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Shong

Crystal Shong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, no explanation of which notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of PowerVR products

List of PowerVR products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete company already has an article with all the same information, albeit in less detail. this product list has been copied and pasted to this website as well, which is even using the same image hosted on wikimedia servers (click the image on enotes.com and it takes you to the wiki file); seems someone is on a promotional bender. the text from the main article about the company also can be found on that website. not sure if this is a copy vio as it may be the user who posted that info there also made the two articles here. regardless, this article is unsourced and, i believe, unnecessary considering the redundancy. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually i am not completely sure, what is the wiki policy in this area. are other companies allowed to maintain unsourced lists of their products on wikipedia? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after reading this talk page, maybe that user is right, this type of comparison of their products could be appropriate. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I shunted this list to a separate page rather than deleting it because I thought it had the potential to become useful (with a lot of work by a helpful editor). But I would not oppose a consensus to delete. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral maybe you're right, don't want to be the deletion nazi going around destroying information with potential. so, unless another editor points out a reason to delete i will change to neutral. really only nominated this because of the seemingly promotional nature, but also just wanted to bring attention to it because i was unsure if the copy and paste editing violated any copyright policy. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:30, 8 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 Speedy deleted as G3, no proof it exists Versageek 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daigle Me

Daigle Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage anywhere that I can find. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 04:08, 7 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 redirect to Structured product. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rate-linked note

Interest rate-linked note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources cited, none found in search. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing term

Marketing term (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Neutral for the time being. The concept of a "marketing term" probably is capable of expansion, and in fact seems to be in such routine use that I'm a bit stymied to find sources that discuss "marketing term" in a general way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. The term is encyclopedic and should be expanded. Should be marked as a stub to encourage expansion. --Treekids (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've hit the same problem as Ihcoyc. The problem is that the ordinary meaning of "marketing term" is an item of jargon terminology used in the field of marketing. But that isn't what this article claims to be about. As far as I can tell (at any rate), this article claims to be about the nonce words and phrases that people offhandedly, and disparagingly, refer to as "marketing terms". Although there are sources that mention ordinary marketing terminology/jargon, mostly simply glossaries of the same, I have yet to find a source that documents what this article purports to be about. I suspect that this name is itself a "marketing term" for what is more usually called marketing speak or a buzzword. But I cannot be sure. The article's creator has given very little context to go on in the article, zero sources, and zero further explanation above in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a marketing degree, and honestly don't understand what the definition of "marketing term" means here. When I read the first sentence, I though it meant a brand name, which is also supported by the claims that it could be copyrighted (at least the logo) and trademarked. In this case, the correct term is brand name. Another alternative is, as Uncle G states, that it is a buzzword. However, buzzwords are not normally trademarked or copyrighted. Could it be slogan that is meant? Then again, brand names, buzzwords and slogans are all too short to be copyrighted (they can only be registered as trademarks). "Marketing term" could also mean something akin to greenwashing (a word used to describe marketing strategies), but that is again not copyrightable or trademarkable. Unless someone can explain what the term means, please delete it as WP:OR or even WP:HOAX. Arsenikk (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary nissenson

Mary nissenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional unsourced BLP full of dubious claims and promotional language. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only cleanup possible is a complete re-write, that's why I voted delete rather than keep. Spam is spam even if it's about a notable topic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Brittas

John Brittas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. Being a managing director is not, of itself, notable for an encyclopaedia entry. Since creation in 2007, the article has been tagged for improvement with no signs of any improvement apart from the tags being removed. The award mentioned appears to be a scholarship scheme and is unlikely to be sufficient to address notability. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the Ramnath Goenka Awards appear to be fairly prestigious, (speeches thereon by India's chief justice of the supreme court), but it's hard to find out much about it. That said, if this award is Brittas's only claim to notability then the article stands or falls on the award's status. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Ramnath Goenka Award may be prestigious; but can anyone verify whether it was awarded to John Brittas? Do they (the trust) have a website. Is this (the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award to Brittas) covered in any mainstream newspaper; at least in Indian Express which is associated with this trust. Did anyone get anything other than this Wikipedia article for a Google search of this "Journalism Educational Award".180.149.48.245 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guidelines are that if a BLP depends on an award, that the award should be "well known". I would interpret this a needing to be internationally recognized. If basic searches reveal so little information that we are not sure exactly what the significance of the award is and there is no Wikipedia article for Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award, then it must be considered not notable enough by itself to justify the existence of BLPs for awards winners. The award was created in 2006 by the Express Group for Indian journalists. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "we don't have an article, therefore it's not notable" isn't much of an argument. Wikipedia's coverage of India isn't as good as it should be, perhaps we missed something somewhere? Incidentally, googling Ramnath Goenka Awards turns up quite a few hits, although they seem to be mostly Indian news outlets trumpeting winners from their own staff. The award is seemingly well-known within Indian journalism (and worth an article here?), but I'm starting to doubt whether simply winning one makes Mr Brittas notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 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) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 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 per WP:BLP. Besides David Dinkins, there are several other unsourced statements in this article about living people. If someone wants to source this article I will be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Corrao

Joseph Corrao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing whatsoever, and contains defamatory claims about living individuals and corporations. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I believe that undoubtedly good sources do exist to corroborate this. This so-called "crime family" has been written on and reported on extensively, and in great depth. Also, almost all of the people who were directly associated with the Gambino's during the events leading up to John Gotti's arrest have their own pages. And since this isn't a BLP, I think it should just be tagged for needing references...and perhaps trimmed down on some of the more critical aspects until the refs are provided. This could be a really interesting and highly content-debated article. The Eskimo (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a BLP, but there are references to living people supposedly linked to him and to two cafes and a fuel company he supposedly part-owned, all with zero sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix it or delete it - One can say of a dead person that they exhumed the body of Chester A. Arthur and used it as a coffee table or collected the heads of housecats in pickle jars, but if one makes an assertion about a living person being a member of an organized crime family, one had damned well better have that documented. All potentially defamatory material about living people needs to be footnoted or removed pronto, or this article should be deleted. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
  • Keep Just which living people are they about whom negative information is given. Dinkins is mentioned, but not negatively, & there should be a newspaper source for his involvement in canceling the city contract with him In any case, the basic material in the article is clearly about other deceased individuals, so if there is such material about living people and it cannot be sourced , it can be removed without needing to delete the article.. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 7 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) 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World's first pine tree farm

World's first pine tree farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the moment, this is little more than an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) about the "first" timber plantation. I can only see one mention in a search, and that mention is not from a reliable source. This may warrant a sentence or two at Plantation#Forestry but nothing more. (Struck because it is clear that this is not true) It also seems as if the text has been copied from somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:49, 7 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. The arugments for deletion seem to significantly outweigh the sole reason for retention here. –MuZemike 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Scott-Batchler

Janet Scott-Batchler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMdB verifies the career. amazon & worldcat verify the book. But the book is self-published, and the material at IMdB is not sufficient to show notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 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) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 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. Jummy Pit's keep vote notwithstanding, I see consensus here for delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Batchler

Lee Batchler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Imdb verifies the career, but I do not think the career notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangential comment I do not believe WP:AUTHOR makes any requirements on how much of a creative work must be purely from the creator's mind rather than incorporated/adapted/portrayed/borrowed from elsewhere. There were plenty of cypresses and sunflowers in Arles before Van Gogh arrived and tried representing them on canvas; history writers get historical information from other sources, rather than directly participating in major world events; and Eddie Adams merely handled a camera, he didn't execute anyone :-) bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 30 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, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Research Institute

Charlotte Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN organization. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Totally unreferenced. Nothing to merge. Prod was contested by an anon IP. GrapedApe (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building Services Architect

Building Services Architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic.. Is little more than a large dictionary definition. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this. It would have been procedurally deleted by now. If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, so a deletion, or a move to another architecture related article would also probably be in order.--Kudpung (talk)
  • Delete. As per nom, basically an unreferenced dicdef, reads very much like original research on an unnotable topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing about the importance of the profession. The nomination is for a page that contains little more than a dicdef that has been languishing at the bottom of the NPP list since 31 Augustat NPP for ten weeks because its creator cant't be bothered to come back and expand it, and no other editors, and nobody here on this AfD knows what to do with it. The article does not assert sufficient importance for its existence. If it had been a PROD, it would have been long gone already. The nomination is perfectly justified because it gives you an opportunity to challenge it, but two relistings here, one keep, and one delete, have demonstrated that nobody cares either way.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 14 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koprol

Koprol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local social networking site. Promotional tone. Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo as may seem to be suggested on its site graphics. Kudpung (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:N (e.g. the Tempo articles I just added). As for the nominator's statement that it "Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo", I can only assume he did not follow WP:BEFORE whatsoever: the very first item in Google News Archive is about its acquisition by Yahoo. cab (call) 05:50, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metis TransPacific Airlines

Metis TransPacific Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is largely a fluff piece as well as furthering what has long been suspected to be a hoax airline. I do not believe that this article or even "organization" meets our notability requirements. Furthermore, the sourcing quality is largely lacking and what is provided is either too promotional or not reliable per our established standards. -MBK004 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe it's notable. It's a notable hoax. If multiple sources suggest that an organisation may be fictional (and is controversial as a result), that means we should pay extra scrutiny to sources, not that we must delete it - wikipedia has lots of fine articles on hoaxes. In this case we have some good sources to establish notability. I have added an extra ref on the hoax; a Macau Daily Times article. If some content in the article appears to take the airline too seriously, we should correct that content; but the lede currently says "Metis TransPacific Charter Airlines is an airline that claimed to be based in Macau, People's Republic of China; the actual existence of the airline has been disputed. Its website is no longer online" so, as it stands, I doubt the article is furthering a hoax; I think it mostly takes the right stance. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Geliskhanov

Sultan Geliskhanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

no extensive coverage in gnews [38]. will reconsider if someone can provide substantial coverage in Russian. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want someone who speaks Russian, then use the deletion sorting mechanism or ask at WP:RUSSIA, don't just express a vague desire in your summary for someone who speaks Russian to appear out of thin air. Or you could try using the Google Transliteration tool yourself. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere? I added the {{Find sources}} template above for the Cyrillic spelling. But even with the greater volume of Russian coverage, it's pretty clear this is a WP:BLP1E. The only non-trivial articles about the man were within a few days of his surrender. Everything before or after that consists merely of passing mentions in books and articles about other subjects. His surrender doesn't seem to have been a particularly important event of the Second Chechen War so I'm not sure that's an appropriate merge target. Aside from that one event, it's also verifiable that he was the head of the department of state security ([39]) under Dzhokhar Dudayev in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria back in 1994, but I'm not sure that qualifies him as passing WP:POLITICIAN. Maybe a mention of him in a list of governmental officials of Ichkeria would be appropriate. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourcing is terrible here, but based on the Kommersant article cited in the footnotes (in English), we know the person exists and that the general description of him as a top leader of the Chechen nationalist movement is accurate. Notability seems assured, the question being whether there are any BLP issues to be addressed. Here you will see Султан Гелисханов as the subject of coverage in the online version of Vremia. There are many other hits. Pretty clearly clears the notability bar as a top leader of the Chechen movement, poor sourcing of this article notwithstanding. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
For those of you not versed in Russian history or current events, the Chechens are a Muslim nationality within the old Russian empire, severely repressed under Stalin, who have been using terrorist methods in an attempt to achieve national sovereignty. Gelishkhanov would be regarded a "top terrorist" or a "hero of the Chechen national movement" depending on one's POV. He's notable in Wikipedia terms either way one feels. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. your argument fails to address how the article meets WP:N or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 10 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 redirect to Punggol New Town. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgefield Primary School

Edgefield Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable primary school. Delete and/or merge to school district or locality page as per standard procedure. Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this, it would have been procedurally deleted by now, but I wanted to keep the option open to merge it, rather than WP:BOLD and unilaterally do the merge. . If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will generally be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, therefore in the case of all primary schools, the usual procedure is to merge to the school district article and redirect..--Kudpung (talk)
  • Redirect to Punggol New Town per standard practice, without proper sourcing there is nothing worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per usual practice. No need for an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 7 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Rucker

Ronnie Rucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A radio show host and "co-creator" of a magazine. Despite a handful of references, there is no evidence of notability. Most refs are blogs or not independent. Searching for subject's name brings up a lot of Twitter, blogs etc. Two appearances on non-notable shows, neither of which are mentioned anywhere outside the Youtube, Twitter, Myspace universe. The magazine is unheard of, with only one non-Wikipedia mention on Google. Recently announced a run for politics, but we don't keep candidates on Wikipedia until they win at state level. PROD added twice, and removed by two contributors whose only edits concern this article. Potentially libelous statements about drinking problems made without refs. Dmol (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

  • I'm not the original author but am one of the users mentioned as trying to edit the article in question. I'm new and added my reason why I disagree with the arguments to delete this article in the Talk Page. If I was wrong to do it that way I apologize. RR4PREZ (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — RR4PREZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I Added more to Pendejo Magazine Section. Found review of magazine with mention of articles subject as it's Publisher. Added Category Zines. As a Zine it inherently shouldn't be easily found on Google, shouldn't be cause for deletion. Found mention of Shaka Talk in an article in the Honolulu Weekly, publication outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe. Removed potentially libelous statement, not needed & a distraction from the article. Removed contended statement about running for office, seemed out of place anyways. RR4PREZ (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His radio show doesn't seem to be notable, and neither does his zine. (Zines don't get special treatment because they're obscure; it's assumed that any Zine that has achieved notability will have risen out of obscurity in the process.) —Paul A (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree it being a Zine shouldn't qualify it for special treatment but because it's a Zine, inherently not notable, one shouldn't be able to assume because said Zine isn't popular, or "risen out of obscurity," it should be used as a cause to delete an article as it was in the Original AfD and once again above. (note: if memory serves me correctly, zine was not an issue in the original two PROD's) The edits, including the fact that it was a Zine, since the Original AfD were made to address the reasons that provoked this discussion. I think I addressed them well as one could infer by the article being Relisted due to lack of consensus, or what would seem to be the case, no definitive reason for deletion was apparent. If there were I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be having to write this. From the beginning of this process, with the exception of one other user, I haven't seen one editor attempt to improve this article, for example the potentially libelous statements, they were used as a cause for delete as first resort in the original PROD's and once again in the AfD rather than being deleted from the article. Another example is the notion that the subject of this article announced a run for political office. Instead of deleting the statement, trying to get clarification, adding citation needed tags, or any other of the myriad of options available to users, straight to AfD, supported by evidence that one would have to read the original statement with a very crooked eye to reach that conclusion (see discussion page). Instead of looking past the first page of a Google search it's claimed that there are zero mentions of subject outside of a particular universe, straight to PROD. Instead of researching and making an attempt to understand something more, things get labeled "unheard of" and straight to PROD. With that said, there is no way that this article or any article for that matter, can defend it's self against vague causes for deletion like "doesn't seem notable," lazy research, or outright untruths like "no mentions outside of the Youtube, Twitter, or the MySpace universe" as addressed (see edit history). I'm at loss. Is there a process? Is it taken seriously? RR4PREZ (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, (As the person who listed it for AFD). Despite all the several pages of commentry you have added here and on other talk pages, you still have not done what needs to be done and that is to prove that Ronnie Rucker is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Nothing you have added or removed from the article has changed that.--Dmol (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not even sure his 'radio' show is even broadcast anywhere, it appears to be a self-produced web-only thing. And zines can rarely be notable, but the people who make them aren't. The obvious self-promotion/WP:COI/Spam issues aren't helping any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources provided in the article meet WP:RS, and I can't find anything to establish general notability. Delete I'm afraid! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:27, 8 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Lizzard

King Lizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stumbled upon this when I found a "self" image of the subject - it said "I Randall Colmus created this work entirely by myself", when you look at the King Lizzard article, also created by the same user, the first thing it says is King Lizzard (born Randall James Colmus)... From the overall looks of things this user was/is here only to promote themselves via this article. This appears to be a self promotional piece edited mostly by the subject via their user accounts and I.Ps There are no real sources and only links to various "official" websites. The article "asserts notability" but unless sources can back this up I don't see how it meets policy and related guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any coverage of him besides social media. Yoenit (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 20-year period he calls his "famous" years consisted of being in a band that never made a record, getting married, switching religions, and working as an extra. Is that really what this guy considers 'famous'?! Come on, seriously, this article is a joke, right? Right?? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 7 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elnec

Elnec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The domain is spam, and also promoting company products, Advertising. Removed PROD. WuhWuzDat 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:02, 14 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) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Piecha

Scott Piecha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio of a journalist has been PRODded twice for notability concerns and contested. It came to my attention because a user has been replacing the content [40] (user claims this is still the same person), however I can't find biographical coverage that would establish notability for any version of the article. January (Cassandra 73) talk 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 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) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plasti-Clad

Plasti-Clad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored after my speedy deletion, with a claim that the review in Gear Diary supports the article.. I consider that review to be clearly a promotional write up. The leading contractor claim turns out to be a contract for $23,000, according to the ref. given. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:01, 14 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Trip Records

Bad Trip Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence that this company/record labol is notablie Oo7565 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:02, 14 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp.Net

AfDs for this article:
Pulp.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources (only ones that existed were trivial, giving quotes with promotional text) establishing notability. Tagged as advertising for years without improvement. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Wrangler

AfDs for this article:
Tape Wrangler (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)

This stub is an article about one minor brand of tape dispenser. It seems to be promotional and is not really a noteworthy subject. There is an article about the general subject of tape dispensers but I would not want every manufacturer to list their individual products in WK. Wikipedia should not be a product listing service. Pkgx (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Traverse City article is good, but the Detroit News and Forth Worth Star articles both begin with "You can do anything with duct tape, except for getting it off the roll in a smooth, straight piece. Most of the time, the tape folds over and crinkles as you tear off a strip. A new product solves that problem. The Tape Wrangler is like a giant tape dispenser for duct tape. The tape roll fits on a spool and pulls off across a cutting blade that keeps the cuts neat and...", so it appears to be a reprint from somewhere. I don't have access to the full text, so perhaps they diverge as they continue, but they read like a press blurb floated to newspapers. The Hardware Retailers magazine is "the hardware and home improvement industry’s leading trade publication," and is sent free to members of the North American Hardware Retailers Association, basically a vehicle for advertisers to target hardware retailer with some fluff and feel good pieces, and I don't think these three really go to establish notability in the generals sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article. While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring". Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that you have access to the full article in Detroit News, yes? Does it have a byline, such as AP or Reuters? That would be the usual way a reprint between two regional papers would work. As for the 'spring product review' my assumption is that spring refers to the season, but again, I couldn't say without full access to the text of the article. I'm very leerly of using snippets to assess notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a biker I only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should I use WD40. If it does move and it shouldn't I use duct tape. From what I can see of the topic it seems to be a fairly unique product - I don't know of any other duct tape dispensers and I work in theatres sometimes where we use miles of the stuff. That's OR/POV of course, so take it for what it's worth. Reading the listed sources it does seem to me to be a notable product and I would happily support it being kept on that basis. I do think the article would be better rewritten to feature the company rather than one of its range of products. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mebbe across the pond duct tape is better, but here you'd use gaffer's tape and PB Blaster--WD40's a good cleaner but not much else. (' --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 21 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) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Zemanová

Veronika Zemanová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little indication of notability; a google search indicates a couple of sources, but they appear to be exclusively forums or blogs, sites which present wikipedia's own material, and social networking sites. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment yes, little chance of scholarly articles on this subject. Establishing notability in the normal way will be impossible or difficult. However one factor which I believe the google searches show is this nude model's fame - explain: In the UK (and possibly Europe) this nude model was in the 80s and 90s famous in her chosen career. As far as I know she did not model much for magazines in North America. Basically it is difficult to understate her fame in the area of 'mens magazines' during that time period. I think that needs to be stated for anyone who needs a cluestick on this one. See the multiple interwiki links for this title which give a clue as to the relative fame of this subject. (or turn safe search off and do an image search for "zemanova" ~699,000 images which is more than the olsen twins per twin..)
However the article is unlikely to ever amount to a good encyclopaedic article given the subject area, and there is really very little to say about the subject. Probably an odd example where fame does not confer notability. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Do not delete. mind your own business. --Jo (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that arguments which are not based on policy or do not address the issues will be disregarded by the closing admin, and uncivil and unjustified "votes" are simply disruptive. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't work by counting "votes"; make a valid, policy-based argument or it'll simply be disregarded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Veronica is indeed very famous. She has appeared for playboy and other major magazines, and has accomplished as much as any other porn model. if you delete here page, you will have to delete a lot of other pages. Personal attack removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) --Jo (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite (US band)

Satellite (US band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability. CSD removed by an editor claiming the band indicates notability based on a "specific association with Mitch Allan". While Allan is notable, WP:BAND only supports notability when a band "contains two or more independently notable musicians". This a new band, released debut EP July 2010 and performed together for the first time in August 2010. I do not see where the band meets any criteria of WP:BAND. Additionally, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:54, 14 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Memorial High School

Lloyd Memorial High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While High schools are considered notable, this article is not about the high school but about the results of its football team. Not notable. Unsourced. noq (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite. The nominator is correct that the current article is uninformative. However, this can be easily fixed by recourse to the district's and school's official websites[42][43], and a Google News search turns up quite a bit about the school, including a 2001 article from the Kentucky edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer that gives a nice summary the history of the school and asserts, "In 1956, Lloyd High School made national news when it became one of the first schools in the country to desegregate. The integration went so smoothly the school was featured in a Life magazine article spotlighting its success."[44] I have to run out for some errands right now, so if someone else wants to take this information and re-do the article, that's great, otherwise I'll deal with it later; but there's no need to delete the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have effected a rewrite of the article per the above, keeping the useful infobox from the existing article, adding basic information and history with a couple of sources, and deleting the excessively detailed information about the football team's recent games. I think the article now qualifies as a clear keep under our usual standards for high schools. With respect to Mandsford's comments below, I don't see how it "rubs salt in the wound" to make use of the infobox prepared by the article's creator; it seems to me that a complete deletion of all of the editor's good faith efforts--even the valid ones--would be worse. All the more so because it appears to me, from reviewing User talk:Tleejr, that this editor previously attempted to write an article that included information about the school's history, but fell afoul of WP:COPYVIO. (By the way, I am uncertain if an image of the school's logo may be used in the infobox, as it is currently; if not, of course, that logo may need to be deleted.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. User:Tleejr can still read his original article by clicking upon the article's history tab, an option that wouldn't have been available with an outright delete. Mandsford 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Delete Good writing, bad topic. It's the first time contribution from a new editor who may be unfamiliar with the rules concerning notability. Although I appreciate the effort that went into it, there are no high school football teams that are notable enough that their schedules and results can be hosted on Wikipedia. Granted, there are tons of fan-created articles about college teams seasons, and an occasional attempt to create a shrine to every player on a college team, but allowing an article about the Lloyd High team's season would mean that we'd have to allow pages for every other high school sports team as well. I won't rub salt in the wound by suggesting that the contribution be rewritten about something else entirely; the information is organized well, even though the topic itself wouldn't qualify for its own article, and I encourage User:Teleejr to consider that format for other articles. If someone else wants to write their own article called "Lloyd Memorial High School (Erlanger, Kentucky)" they can start from scratch. Mandsford 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - all high schools are de facto notable, only primary schools are deleted. This school clearly asserts additional notability according to a The Enquirer article (very good source) about an extremely notable event. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education --Kudpung (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are presumed notable according to our guidelines, and Arxiloxos's rewrite should assuage any concerns about the article's contents. 28bytes (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent, although in fairness to the nominator this was a terrible article at the time it was nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article makes an explicit claim of notability, above and beyond our general consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my standards, and on Arxiloxos's excellent job of fixing it. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All high schools are notable. Not sure if any of the 73 Google news results mentioning this high school would provide any notable coverage, but doesn't matter, since as I said, all high schools are notable. Dream Focus 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong speak 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per previous precedent regarding high schools and WP:SNOW. SnottyWong speak 23:19, 13 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) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor C. X. Wang

Victor C. X. Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, which appears to have been written by its subject and has an odd relationship to its sources (for example, it lists Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a source for someone who is definitely not mentioned in the book and was, indeed, four years old when it was written) is about someone who doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Chick Bowen 00:03, 7 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 keep. - Bobet 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

This is a vanity article,for the user,Arthur Rubin,other than (has earned a place among the five top ranked undergraduate competitors ) thers nothing else.I don't think this is notable enof for wikipedia. Pixel ;-) 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,Yes,i suspect that you are not nottable enof.Are the winners of the contest nottable?Why a holle article?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nottable per what?He has a fields medal,or noble?--Pixel ;-) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA.Ok,now i understand why you all mock me.No no,i now that thers no nobel in maths(any one has a gess why? :-))i was putting an example for nottability.I'm not a dumbt like you seem to sujest,you shouldn't make a link ither betewn my intellect and my spelling.--Pixel ;-) 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd seriously consider Reid Barton for deletion too. He doesn't seem quite notable according to WP:PROF though I'm sure it's quite likely he'll qualify one day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or he will simply burn out.--Pixel ;-) 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Erdős number 1. Putnam exam top 5 finisher 4 consecutive years is also notable. Nomination reason given is factually inaccurate, and I doubt that the nominator is qualified to assess encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. Quale 04:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your worme and kind words.What i see is an undergraduate competition,and then nothing(apart erdos thing).From the notability critiria only (7.The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.) seems to be closer to the situation.And from that i undestand it like the fields medal or something,not an undergraduate competition.And yes,i now that ther isn't a nobel for maths,you whant my opinion on this?--Pixel ;-) 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Are we going to give everyone with an impressive resume in their field a wikipedia entry? And to head off the increasingly hostile tone of the article supporters, yes, I am qualified to assess the encyclopedic notability of mathematician bios. SkipSmith 06:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Personally, I think he's more notable as a Wikipedian admin. (A good admin yet still...) Though with the article, I would give more weight to his Erdős number then to the Putnam Competition since at it's core the former is work with probably one of the most notable mathematician and the later is ultimately just a contest. It is a difficult and very selective contest but still just a contest. 205.157.110.11 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is a repeat Putnam Fellow, a Caltech graduate, and a mathematician with Erdős number 1. I don't know anyone else in the same group. Do you? Giftlite 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Six people have won the Putnam fellowship 4 times, 15 have won 3 times. There are 509 people with an Erdos number of 1. There are thousands of Caltech graduates. I'm sure I could find thousands of people that have a unique combination of several prestigious titles, accomplishments, or awards. Uniqueness isn't the same as notability. SkipSmith 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - doesn't look like a vanity article to me. Erdős 1 is a pretty reliable indicator for notability in mathematicians. Needs to be expanded --Storkk 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Erdos number = 1 makes a mathematician notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should we create entries for all 509 mathematicians with an Erdos number of 1? SkipSmith
If we have anything to say about them and somebody wants to write them, then yes by all means. 509 is not a huge number of articles by any standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and there are only 1948 people with a Bacon number of 1. We've got some article writing to do ... SkipSmith 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Katsumi number.--Pixel ;-) 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_October_7&oldid=389297073"