Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding AfD for Federrico. (TW)
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/Federrico}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Balbalu}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Balbalu}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Macann}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Macann}}

Revision as of 19:40, 26 January 2011

< 25 January 27 January >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federrico

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

No context for why this is important, request for citations added in April 2008, no citations added. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 19:40, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. Could you please explain why you agree? Your recent pattern of voting keep is usually keep per someone else with zero explanation. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to format your link correctly.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the link. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also did some additional research and I am now even more firm with my Keep because the actors in it are very notable and "famous" in venezuela. Also 8 gneews hits are still 8 gnews hits. Which in any case establish minimum notability needed for Weak keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a sitcom isnt American doesnt make it non-notable. Neither the fact that its from way back in the 80s.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that any sources published in Venezuela, which we would expect to constitute the majority of potential sources for this subject, would contain the word "Venezuela"? When searching for sources about American topics do you expect them to contain "United States"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes no sense to me?. I truly dont understand what you mean. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in reply to Libstar, as I thought was clear from the indentation. Libstar's search included the word "Venezuela", which there is no reason to expect to appear in any sources for this subject, so can't be taken as evidence against notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize for the misunderstanding. And I do agree with you. It seems a bit odd. That cant be taken as evidence against notability, true.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil when you search google news with Federrico alone it turns up a lot of people with the name Federrico. It would not be necessary for a US show to add united states but I had to target the google news search. Secondly BabbaQ fails to understand that passing mentions or program listings do not qualify as in depth coverage. Lastly, I never said a show being from venezuela or from the 1980s makes it less notable. That is putting words into my mouth. My !vote stands. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocker..--BabbaQ (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE LibStar (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultraman Leo. Anyone preferring to redirect it to the list can change it, but I'm just about to AFD the list. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Balbalu

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

Non-notable fictional characters, no hits on Google Books, Scholar, News. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swoop G

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

I contested a prod on this one as I thought it needed more scrutiny. He has released an album that reached #99 on the Billboard R&B albums chart - see Allmusic, but the only real coverage found was an article form the Press-Enterprise reporting his arrest on suspicion of murder in 2006. He has released at least three albums, so there may be offline coverage somewhere, but from what I've so far found, I don't think we have enough for an article. Michig (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While the !vote count leans toward Keep, the true policy backed consensus is for the article to be deleted. There haven't been any references presented thus far that show any form of notability for this article to be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centro del Sur

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

Deprodded with addition of "sources" which are both primary. No non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep- There is no reason this should be at AFD. The mall is very notable and there is bound to be a lot of information seeing that it was one of Puerto Rico's top malls for a long time. Plaza del Caribe has replaced it in Ponce recently, but it doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Third-party sources are very easy to be found, you just have to give the article time. (WP:DEMOLISH) Feedback ☎ 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- While my first reaction is "Speedy Keep" I figured there must be one very significant reason why 10-lbs wants it deleted. So please elaborate on what makes the 2 existing sources to be "primary sources" using WP's criteria and how that alone is enough reason to delete the article. Also, explain in what way the coverage is not "non-trivial", citing specific examples if you can. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The first source appears to be the city's website or some sort of directory listing which is not a non-trivial mention. The second is the mall's own website, which clearly is a primary source (anything's own website = primary source). Clearly neither of you know what speedy keep means, nor do you know what "reliable secondary source" means. Are there any news articles about this mall? If so, then Google News doesn't have them. "It's been around a long time" is not enough. Also, the article's been around since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you forgot to cite specific examples of how the article's coverage is trivial. Or maybe you just couldn't cite any -- I did say, "if you can". Nowhere did you elaborate on where Wikipedia policies state that a city government's official website is a trivial source, other than the product of your own invention. Clearly there is someone here who doesn't know what he's talking about, and that someone is you. Ah, and did I forget to mention your own use of a mall's "own" website as a primary source in Eastridge Mall, as shown HERE? And, in case you did not understand my vote last time, I did say "Speedy Keep" and, in addition, I re-considered my decision and still voted "Speedy Keep". So I said Speedy Delete and Speedy Delete it is. It wasn't any of your business to come along modifying my edits w/o my authorization. Just as with WP:SNOW you are misinterpreting WP:Speedy Keep. As another editor said, striking out "speedy" in votes is considered refactoring editor's comments. So next time keep your fingers to yourself. Even if you were right, your striking action is an insult to the closing admin's intelligence. The same goes for your "Comment to admins" above: I will have to believe you are really thinking admins cannot figure out Mercy11 is the article's author (a misnomer as I, though the creator, was only one of the authors).
"Are there any news articles about this mall?" ... and ... "Since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources." So argumentative!! Why don't you bring up the new sources yourself as you happily did HERE for another mall article, and stop putting yourself for judge amongst us? The encyclopedia would be better served if instead of nagging to others about how bad this article is you went ahead and spent your time fixing the Centro del Sur Mall article as you cheerfully did with this other Mall article HERE.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Better sources from WHERE? I found absolutely nothing when searching "Centro del Sur" + various keywords. Where are the news articles? Magazine articles? That kind of thing. Don't say "Keep but add more sources" if no more sources exist; it's not like the Source Fairy is gonna make sources grow overnight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2 x e/c) Well, I don't speak spanish, but I found a couple of mentions (which are probably just that, mentions, though) in local media : 1, 2... Now I agree these are far from good sources, but I'll say this : lack of reliable sources is not a criteria for deletion, notability is. Especially as this is a non-contentious article, facts can be trusted coming from primary sources or listings, unlike BLPs. So I say again : keep (because sources is not a criteria for deletion), but if possible, add more sources. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did cite WP:SNOW, didn't I? I don't understand why this is such a big issue for you? I voted speedy keep, maybe it wasn't within the guidelines of speedy keep, whatever, the closing admin will decide that when establishing whether to keep or not. Now that this is said, I don't believe I have anything to add. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your language, 10 pound, this is not a battleground but a forum to discuss your delete proposal. In any event, one option was for you to tag the article POINTING OUT that it needed more citations but, 10 pound, you chose to go for the Nuclear option instead. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

  • KEEP: as Diego Grez pointed out in his link, there are many reliable 3rd party sources including some of the most widely circulated newspapers in Puerto Rico. El Johnson (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "In Ponce, shopping addicts head for the Centro del Sur" 1. Centro del Sur is one of the main mall on the island. Do we delete because sources are not easily available online? After 10 years and millions of dollars Wikipedia still doesn't get it.--Jmundo (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Let's step back for a moment. First reference to establish and demonstrate notability is a listing of the street address of the shopping center from a local government site. Second reference on the page is a 1st party reference to the subject itself and as such is unacceptable as a demonstration of notability. First link brought up here (at AFD) to demonstrate notability is a manager of a store in the sopping center talking about the Lottery and some of the prizes you could win (like a dinner at their restaurant). Second mentions the shopping center in passing regarding a chain of toy stores that are good for children's birthdays. Google books link by Jmundo only mentions the mall in passing in a overall section about shopping. Notability by these links and references has NOT been established. I apologize to any spanish speakers/readers as to my understanding of the articles linked. To use the abused argument WP:OTHERSDONTEXIST a major shoping mall that takes up 3 corners of an intersection in my hometown is not yet established as an article here because, while it may have importance locally, it has yet to have 3rd parties that Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources write about it's significance. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin, please review the information I have put together on the talk page concerning what may be a dilution of concensus. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I noticed that 10 lb hammer added the {{primarysources}} and {{refimprove}} tags after the nomination for deletion. I believe that this should have been the preferred method to improve upon this article which clearly needs improvement. I am glad that this has been realized and corrected by adding these tags. Thus my vote is based upon these facts: 1. Appropriate hatnote tags have been added. 2. Article is Stub Class. 3. Time is needed to allow editors to act based upon these hatnotes. QuAzGaA 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You bet he did it after his nomination for deletion.
In fact, here is another cute little fact: his very first move was to put a notice in the article that it was being considered for deletion. It turns out I monitor that article and saw the notice and made a few improvements to the article (added the photo, added content, and the holy grail, added another citation) after seeing his notice. Now, at that point any reasonable human being would had, in good faith, attempted to work with me, right? Well, no, not 10 pounder, instead at that point he went for the Nuclear option and in response to my good faith edits (and, VERY IMPORTANT: 1&1/2 days later) he gracefully nominated the article for deletion. There was no common courtesy to state his objection to the article in the article's discussion page, and if he had innocently forgotten to do that, he later acted in bad faith by nominating the article for deletion 1&1/2 days later when I had already started good faith efforts to fix the problem(s) he was nagging about.
So he follows a non-standard protocol in making delete nominations. He doesn't have the darn courtesy to post anything other that a Delete Nomination (and, then, in bad faith). If a person doesn’t even know how to follow common courtesy (com’n danmit we are talking COMMON courtesy), how the hell can we expect him to subscribe to anything in the world of the rest of us living reasonable human beings? And to lack of courtesy and bad faith, I add that his action was disruptive in that we could be attending to other more important matters than seeking to control this guy's impertinent and baseless delete nomination. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Mercy11, please stop attacking Ten Pound Hammer. This is the page to discuss the merits of the Centro del Sur article, not to accuse him of wrongdoing. If you persist in assuming bad faith, you will probably find yourself blocked from further contributions. I ask you, focus on the article and not on the editors. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind getting blocked,,, for the right reason. When someone that doesn't know me calls me ignorant, as he did above for no reason, you bet I will also attack back. However, my goal was not to assume bad faith, but to report the facts as they unfolded. I do react to reasonable people, so I will comply with your courteus request. We need more people like you submitting AfDs. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment Question: Can anyone please show us e.g. 3 or more newspaper articles that are actually about the mall; ie "significant coverage"? I can't tell from the links so far provided, but I have yet to see evidence to pass the general notability guideline. If such sources cannot be found at this time, then deletion and userfy would be more appropriate. Live articles need to meet WP:GNG. The notability criteria is not subjective; not "if we think it is notable" - it is specific. Please see WP:VRS.  Chzz  ►  05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why 3? Why newspaper articles? You seem to be setting those two in stone, but I don't see where they are set in stone in WP:RS, or am I missing something in that message? Also, WP:VRS and userfy are essays, not policies or guidelines. Maybe we should be more careful because they don't have an weigh-in in this discussion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • There are lots of forms that reliable sources can take - but many of them aren't going to apply to malls. How many scholarly works discuss malls, and this one in particular? Few malls have books written specifically about them. Articles from the media (typically print) are about the best we can hope for in the case of the typical shopping mall. There is no "3 references or delete" rule, but 1 reference would not be sufficient and 2 would be iffy. The question I would ask, I suppose, is "Why not?" UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "3 newspaper articles" for simplicity. "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is open to some degree of interpretation, but to me, it means >2. I suggested newspapers, as I thought that might be the best chance. Books, and certain websites (e.g. newsworthy; with the 'reputation for fact-checking' etc) would also be fine. Yes, GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Verifiability, No original research and sticking to a neutral point-of-view are policies, and all are dependent on decent coverage in reliable sources. If there are few good sources, then it is impossible to have a neutral, verifiable article on a topic - no matter what it is about.  Chzz  ►  15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the following Mall articles (and there are scores more) cite any references whatsoever: Foothills Mall (Arizona), Northpark Mall (Mississippi), MetroCentre Mall, Lake Forest Plaza, Kahala Mall. Yet they dont even have a tag at all - let alone being listed as AfDs. (And that's just a sampling.... as I said there are scores more at this Cat HERE, possibly hundreds as I noticed via a quick perusal). I am not suggesting this in any way that more references shouldn't be added to Centro del Sur, but instead asking, isn't it more reasonable yet to direct our limited resources at addressing all of those such miserable mall articles before we start dealing with mall articles that, like Centro del Sur, have references albeit objectionable by some accounts? There are many, many other Mall articles in the same Cat link above that either don't cite any references but have a tag on them (such as Valley Mall (Hagerstown) and Capitola Mall), and many more that are guilty of possessing the objectionable "Primary" References only (ex: The Loop (Methuen, Massachusetts)) and many others also that possess the so-called "No non-trivial" references (ex: Solomon Pond Mall (a town’s website and travel blog)). If we are going to be reasonbale, such articles ought to take precedence over others that, like Centro del Sur, were being attended to in good faith to bring up to compliance. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    • Mercy11, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're not dealing with the other articles, we're dealing with this one. Have you even read the sources listed at the article and proposed here? Take a look at other Mall articles and see what they have in terms of references and how the reference speaks about the mall at length and not just the name in passing in 1 sentence.
  • Well, thanks, but I made it known before I wasn't using that as a Keep rationale and also stated why I brought it up. In any event, thanks for the otherstuff link which I didn't have. Essentially I spoke out of intution, and it turned out to be correct. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment As a local to Penuelas (20 mintes from Ponce), I'm going to search for articles to see what I can find in regards to Centro del Sur and it's notability, both in English and Spanish. Can we please remember to remain civil here and not attack. TenPoundHammer, please also remember that it's inappropriate to strike another individuals !vote, as this is simply a discussion and individuals have the right to their own opinion. This has got to be one of the worst cases of civility that I have seen. I'll be back shortly with my findings and my opinion/!vote. Dusti*poke* 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this helps, however, this is their section for press releases, events, news articles etc. On the right hand sie, it lists Commercial Centers Management, Inc.'s properties (they own CDS). In total, this mall contains 62 stores. This statement, "Come and visit Santa Rosa Mall and Centro Del Sur Mall, the only two shopping centers in Puerto Rico that provide a specialized program that offers classroom facilities with particular courses for the use of the community, completely free!" indicates it also acts as a community center of such. I haven't spent a lot of time researching this in spanish, as I doubt we'll find a lot in English, however - I can state that I feel this article should be kept. Dusti*poke* 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusti, that's good information but it is also known that Centro del Sur was the largest mall in southern Puerto Rico for over 30 years - until PDC opened in 1992. I am afraid some folks here might be thinking Centro del Sur is some sort of a low-life strip mall. Fact is, local papers cover the yearly Miss Centro Del Sur contest hosted there (advertising? maybe but so is Miss Universe and no one would think of doing a AFD on that), the mall's opening day festivities in the 1950s, that it's has the distiction of being the largest of the malls owned by the largest mall owner in PR, etc. All these things are documented by reliable, third party, secondary sources, including newspapers. Unfortunately, there are editors arguing that to be acceptable as a source the source must have received the blessing of the Pope. You know the expectation is to find sources that "speak about the mall at great length", as one editor put it, when it has already been shown that the likelihood of finding scholarly discussions, even news articles, about something as mundane as a mall is next to zero, whether it has 240,00 sq ft or 240 million sq ft. Centro del Sur is discussed in the respected books by Randall Peffer, yet that doesn't move editors with preconceived ideas of the level of coverage a mall must have to be considered prominent. I perceive a lack of the common sense in these expectations, especially when certain locales, such as capitalistic hubs, are more likely to rite in-depth news articles about their malls than are (then-) agricultural towns like Ponce, all other things (read: mall square footage) being the same. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Delete WEe have consistent deleted articles on malls of this limited size (220,000 sq. ft) unless there is some very strong reason otherwise. I think we are as we should be a little more reluctant for articles in this subject because of the obvious potential for advertising. I do not see any special importance or good sources here; the importance as having a public meeting room is trivial, and the sources adduced above are either trivial, directory information, or press releases. That we have some other articles on malls of this degree of unimportance merely indicates we have not yet gotten to them. Though I suggested deletion for the article, we perhaps might have an article on Commercial Centers Management, in which some information about this and their other malls could be mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that the public meeting room offering at the mall is trivial, but what do you mean that one source is "directory" information? "It's been around a long time" may not be a reason to save a mall article (since many could had been around a long time), but imo, "for a long time it was the only one around in such large geographical area" is reason enough, not because of the time or the geographical aspects, but because of the scarcity point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And rename to List of 1970s punk rock musicians or similar.  Sandstein  07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock

List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Twinkle messed up and left this part-done, so I hope it works OK). I wonder if this makes sense as a supportable list. While there was a "first wave" with sources out there, I can't find any key definition that would make the membership of various musicians objective, and no clear definition as to who was or who was not in the "first wave" - all we have in the article is "1975-1979", which seems arbitrary and is unsourced. If you look on the Talk page, the discussion is pretty much all people swapping their own OR/POVs. I think what we need in order to keep this article is a source that clearly defines the "first wave" in such a way as to make it possible to decide who was in it. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as completely arbitrary in definition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I think we'd need more than one source. I think we'd really need evidence that there's a generally accepted definition of what and who constitutes the "first wave" - there are sure to be lots of different opinions in the music sphere out there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Punk rock became popular in the mid-1970s and was largely over in terms of its initial mainstream popularity by 1979, with post-punk, new wave, goth, etc. becoming more popular. There was a 'second wave' if you like in the early to mid 1980s, particularly enjoying popularity from 1982. The first wave (at least the UK part of it) is documented in Alex Ogg's book No More Heroes: A Complete History of UK Punk from 1976 to 1980. The same publisher has two volumes covering the early 1980s bands, one focusing more on the 'street-punk' and related bands and one on anarcho-punk. 'First Wave' doesn't seem to be widely used, but if retitled to 'List of 1970s punk rock musicians', I don't really see a problem - not difficult to source - there are plenty of books on punk rock of that era.--Michig (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's an interesting idea - I think renaming to "List of 1970s punk rock musicians" could be a good solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Punk rock was started in the early-mid 1970s. That era is known as the first wave of punk. The term is used in the Punk rock article a few times and has book citations that I do not have access to.

The best thing to do is have lists of punk bands by decade (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). The second wave punk bands list is even worse off then this one. If done by decade, there is no POV pushing about sub sub genres. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan to me - I agree the term "first wave" is used, but without a clear definition of what and who it comprises, a list under that title does seem like OR/POV. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Castellan

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

This article also violates WP:N. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Document

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

This article is an essay (apparently writen by employees of Xerox) based on original research, as is outlined on its talk page. Removing the original research from the document would leave us with little more than a dictionary definition, so I propose that deletion is the best option. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMore than a dictionary definition or essay, this is a well referenced article on a notable subject. Documents existed before the Xerox company, and are notable based on pre-Xerox references. Any spamvertising or POV material can be edited out. Edison (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced? Are we looking at the same article? Anyway, this is the pre-Xerox version of the article, if anyone is interested. That version has no references, so I'm not sure we have something to go back to. If someone was willing to rewrite the article from scratch, of course, there would be no need for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the AFD process with the editing process. If you dislike this edit from 2007, the edit history allows you to return to the version before that edit. "Documents" are clearly a notable subject. The version before the 2007 revision by "some folks at Xerox" had remained about the same for 5 years, since 2002. Rather than "Delete and start from scratch," you have the option of editing the article, and tagging it as needing references. You can be bold and go ahead with your proposed revision, or more wisely you can gain consensus for it on the article talk page first, so you do not get accused of vandalism for removing text and references. Did you raise your concerns on the article's talk page, before racing to AFD? A little search in a public library or at Google Book search would reference most of what is in the older version of the article. Edison (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as reading like an essay back in November, but I take your point. I misjudged this and am happy for the discussion to be closed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last comment was disregarded of course, but consensus is still that he is not (yet) notable for a Wikipedia article. NW (Talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fady Alnajjar

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

Autobiography wiht no evidence of notability. None of the refs are about the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I count only 4, as I mentioned above. Are you referring to other works, perhaps internal documents or working papers, that are not available outside his institution? (I ask because I noticed via Geolocate that you're at the same institution as the subject:) Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hope everyone will disregard this inflammatory comment. Geolocate shows this IP as being close-by the anon comment above and both of these anons are in the same geographic area as the subject of the article. (One is actually at the same institution.) They are very possibly one in the same person. Hopefully there will not be any more provocative comments to disrupt the normal debate here! Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Meade

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

Dubious notability, very thin on sources. Another user tried to AFD but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have won the highest level of amateur bodybuilding contest in the USA in 1993, which probably qualifies him per WP:ATHLETE. Iron Man (magazine) is a reliable source for that kind of info. He is involved in some sort of business feud with A. Scott Connelly and another supplement marketer, and the wiki page has been used by both sides (by means of various SPAs) to promote their POV by adding flattering and respectively unflattering material about him which cites some sources that are hard to verify. (Connelly's page suffers the same problem). Tijfo098 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meade does get the kind of coverage you'd expect from that. Here's an interview with him on a BB site. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the IFBB/NPC North American Championships don't even have a Wikipedia page, so there's nothing to even redirect this article to. A troubled high-maintenance biography (see WP:AN) of little value, which is best deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher DiDomenico

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Pparazorback (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DiDomenico is a professional player, not a junior. Canada Hky (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Force of habit from the constant AFDs of Junior players, didn't even realize I typed Junior -Pparazorback (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2011 (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) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Childhood Education International

Association for Childhood Education International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. No independent sources can be found for this organization. Google search results all result in self-published business listings, Facebook pages, etc. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the article's creator:

The organization listed was founded in 1892, and holds historical interest as one of the first professional organizations for teachers. Its historical importance is reflected by its significant collection in the University of Maryland archives, see http://www.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/actions.DisplayEADDoc.do?source=/MdU.ead.histms.0056.xml&style=ead. Through its work with The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (http://www.ncate.org/MemberOrganizations/tabid/588/Default.aspx), ACEI helps set national standards for professional school personnel. Aceieditorial (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I said on the article's talk page, I think this subject could potentially be notable based on a few minutes of noodling around, but this article reads like an advertisement and would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. As such, it should be deleted, but I don't believe I would be opposed if a neutral editor rewrote it. Based on the author's username, it certainly appears to be written by a representation of the organization, which poses an obvious WP:COI. Zachlipton (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   * From the article's creator:

The entry has been modified to remove areas that may have read as an advertisement. It was modeled on currently active pages about similar organizations (see NAEYC article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAEYC), and was placed in response to inquiries about the historical/social significance.Aceieditorial (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is a long overdue creation pointing to an unfortunate lack of work by Wikipedians in a needed area; every one of the red links should have been made articles long ago. What a shame it had to surface in a period when there are many working to delete articles and far fewer obvious candidates left to delete. 5,690 Scholar hits, which for Scholar is a Leviathan. Most topics at AfD are lucky to get that in Google Books. As can be seen from the Google Books hits, ACEI are a creator of, for the purposes of the article, primary source material; that resource is clogged with their own publications. The Scholar resource, scholars that quote them or use them as citations, is a better bet for finding sources. Anarchangel (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this Google News Archive search. See this article, this article, and this article from The New York Times. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory floyd

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bernstein

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

Article reads like an advertisement; strip away the promotional aspects, and I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. A related issue is some heavy WP:COI editing by the subject's webmaster on Hair restoration, Management of baldness, and several other related articles.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page. It is being edited to preserve encyclopedic information and eliminate extraneous information. Thank you. Furthermore, I find the fact that this page has been targeted for deletion simply because I have made an effort to improve Wikipedia articles to be a personal attack on Dr. Bernstein. I agree that this article needs to be modified. But the fact remains that this article has existed in its present form for over a year and it is only now that I have made some edits to other contextually relevant pages that you have targeted this page. I find this behavior to be unacceptable.
As for the comment, I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. Surely you jest. There is some improper wording, I will grant you that, but the suggestion that there is not "any solid biographical material" is farcical. Rbernstein (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:BIO, you'll see that it's about our policy regarding threshold for notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc). However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.
Obviously you are in the wrong, or at minimum not disclosing what you find objectionable to these writings. The idea that there is nothing notable is outrageous and factually-incorrect. Rbernstein (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Account "RBernstein" appears [7] to be a role account and probably should be blocked as such. See WP:ROLE.
What is the problem now? I have edited the article to be as neutral as possible and I have shown you that the article passes muster given the page on notability reference for academics. This article clearly falls within the purview of that article. I, of course, don't mind editing content deemed unsatisfactory, but the manner with which any issues are brought to my attention is problematic. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the assertion was made that Dr. Bernstein or his work do not meet the "threshold for notability." Of course, OhNoitsJamie, I don't expect a response, because your assertion is false. Rbernstein (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my initial nomination already describes my objections. The blurb you quote from WP:PROF doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines. I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area That is where, I am sorry to say, you are factually wrong. Dr. Bernstein was the first person to describe Follicular Unit Transplantation and Follicular Unit Extraction in medical literature. This is an accepted fact in the industry. Do I need to provide you with evidence? Rbernstein (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should start by reading the article before flagging it for deletion. This is a direct quotation from the president of the internationally-respected organization the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery at their meeting in 2001 upon Dr. Bernstein's acceptance of the Platinum Follicle Award for "Outstanding Achievement" in scientific and clinical research in hair restoration: "Dr. Bernstein has contributed to the field of hair transplantation in dramatic and substantial ways, revolutionizing the advancement of Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation. His published articles have become important in advancing this methodology. Dr. Bernstein's contributions to medical literature also include studies examining the power of sorting grafts for density, yield by method of graft production, local anesthetic use, and suture materials." Again, your assertions are baseless. Rbernstein (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, sir, I asked what the problem is now considering that I have edited the article down dramatically and your reply was a reference to your initial objection. What is the problem with the current article? You are not helping, but creating antagonism where none need exist. I ask you to be constructive. You are wasting my time, and your own, with your baseless comments and references to content that no longer exists. Rbernstein (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting further on it. I've stated my case, and other editors can add there !votes during the course of the AfD process. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not commenting now that I've shown evidence that your comments are totally absurd and baseless. You've stated your case that you, don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. You are not defending this comment because it is indefensible in light of the clear facts. Rbernstein (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of notability, you said: doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines
Here is evidence that this is incorrect:
Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities.
CHECK! He is currently Clinical Professor of Dermatology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.
However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements;
CHECK! Dr. Bernstein continues to publish medical literature despite his role as hair restoration physician.
You suggest, unbelievably, that despite meeting two basic criteria for notability as an academic, he isn't a notable academic. Again, this is incorrect to the point of farce. Rbernstein (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:PROF's description of what it means to be an academic, period, and confusing it with its criteria for notability among academics. Anyway, under your reasoning everyone who works either (a) inside academia or (b) outside academia, is not only an academic, but a notable one as well.

Let me advise you, User RBernstein, to stop now. That way, when the actual Dr. Robert M. Bernstein gets into the office tomorrow morning, he might, just might not fire you for bringing him so much embarrassment by your behavior here. Or are you in fact the person your username implies i.e. Dr. Robert M. Bernstein? EEng (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outdenting Perhaps you should read the whole WP:PROF page, instead of focusing on the introduction, which simple establishes who is covered by WP:PROF. I never disputed whether WP:PROF applies. this is the section that is germane to this discussion. Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. I also don't think "Platinum Follicle Award" is going to qualify as a "highly prestigious academic award." OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. Who are you? Honestly, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. Read what I wrote. He has been honored by the pre-eminent society in the field of hair transplantation, a multi-billion dollar international industry. You chose to belittle what you obviously do not understand. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. At the very least, Dr. Bernstein meets this criterion. He has revolutionized the massive industry of hair restoration with his medical literature. It has given him enough of a "notable" status to be invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the Dr. Oz Show, Good Morning America, The Today Show, The Discovery Channel, The Early Show, CBS News, Fox News, and National Public Radio. And that doesn't even include his interviews in print. Honestly, this is getting old. Dr. Bernstein is notable and your objections seem to be driven by some antipathy, on your part, of an undisclosed nature. Rbernstein (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as promotional. Google News shows that he makes himself available for brief comments to media such the New York Times (several), and was quoted by ABC News and CBS News in stories about quarterback Tom Brady's November 2010 consultations with hair-replacement specialists. There are several press releases identifying him as a co-author of Hair Loss & Replacement for Dummies. Gets a passing mention here in the Washington Post as head of the New Hair Institute in an article about hair loss. I don't see the notability. --CliffC (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A closer reading of the Washington Post hair-loss article I mention above shows that it deals with The Bald Truth, a radio show hosted by Spencer Kobren, who is identified by the Post as "an advocate for the balding", and who pays various radio stations for air time.
"The show carries ads that sound like ads (for, among others, a hair transplant chain called the New Hair Institute) as well as on-air recommendations by Kobren himself. The other night, for instance, Kobren wove in endorsements of physicians Robert Bernstein of New York and John Cole, who has an office in Wheaton. Both Bernstein (who heads the New Hair Institute) and Cole are members of something called the International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons (IAHRS) [founded by Kobren]." —Post
--CliffC (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I never realized there were so many hair transplant doctors using the media to help one another drum up business. No wonder some people in the industry feel themselves entitled to WP articles. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongest possible DELETE. I think it's just terrible how this blatant WP:COI account has spent so much time insulting other editors in this AfD, simply to try to preserve an obvious WP:SPAM article whose only purpose is to try to persuade balding people to try out this guy's hair transplant services. Obviously, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. There is no secondary WP:RS whatsoever to support any kind of notability for the doctor, and that certainly is the only relevant fact along the road to closing this matter forever. Qworty (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources. The article appears to be nothing more then well written spam. I see no notability here --Guerillero | My Talk 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but which part of this steaming pile of moneygrubbing manure is "well-written?" EEng (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to see the word "follicular" used once in one's life, though I doubt that it works very effectively as "well-written" WP:SPAM designed to drive bald-headed clients to a hair restorationist's office. Qworty (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right! Follicular -- that's the little car that takes you up a mountain, right? EEng (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just remembered, we used to sing about this in eighth grade music class. The words are perhaps fitting:
To set the air with music bravely ringing
Is far from wrong! Is far from wrong!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Funiculì, follicular, funiculì, follicular!
Echoes sound afar, funiculì, follicular!
--CliffC (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the deletion, I don't think it's obvious enough to be speedy. More importantly, it bothers me a bit how much enjoyment people seem to be taking from it, and the lack of civility. I'm thinking especially of phrases like "steaming pile of moneygrubbing manure", and the personal attack that starts with "Let me advise you". Axlrosen (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a great believer in the potential for redemption of even the most grievous of sinners i.e. many valuable editors were real troublemakers when they started on Wikipedia, but this guy made it perfectly obvious that he was here solely to advance the economic interests of this Bernstein character, and his account has now been blocked for that reason. I take full responsibility for having a little fun at his expense.

As to "Let me advise you...": I stand by that too. Either Dr. Bernstein deserves to be embarrassed (if he encouraged this editor to use Wikipedia -- employing Bernstein's name as a username, no less -- as a promotional forum) or Bernstein does not (if he didn't know what was going on). So for the good of Wikipedia at least, and possibly for that of Dr. Bernstein, I advised the editor to cut the crap.

EEng (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I think Axlrosen has been extraordinarily patient with this user, which is commendable. However, I would advise the user that if they decide to become involved in future collaborative projects, they should avoid adopting such an arrogant and presumptuous tone towards veteran members of the project. It certainly doesn't engender a helpful attitude from others. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lest anyone misunderstand based on a cursory reading, I want to clarify that the "this user" with whom Axlrosen has been so patient is not me, but User:Rbernstein. At least, I hope that's the case. EEng (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (And I too compliment Axlrosen for his patience, though if he'd asked me I would have counseled him to give up much sooner. But many of us have, at times, foolishly wasted our patience on another editors who, in retrospect, was simply taking advantage of our good nature.)[reply]
Sorry not to be clear; yes, I meant that Axlrosen was quite patient with User:RBernstein, and that User:RBernstein (admittedly Dr. Bernstein's webmaster) should heed the advice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here expecting to vote delete and to be honest am quite surprised that no one seems to have looked for sources. This in Popular Science says he pioneered Follicular Unit Transplantation seemingly meeting PROF #1. There are plenty of media references which suggest that he is worthy of note for his work: e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] (you get the idea). Whilst I hate puff pieces and would prefer articles to not be written by conflicted persons, that's never been a reason to delete something when it could be improved. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROF #1 (aka WP:ACAD, Criterion 1) provides (my italics added):
Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea...In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
With due respect to Popular Science, it's not an academic publication, not to mention the substantial number of references requirement. The media references are also useless -- see the very entertaining discussion underway at User_talk:Rbernstein (skip to the section just after the unblock-request box). EEng (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair enough, I stand corrected. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply to SmartSE's comments. With all due respect, I have to point out that none of the links you provide constitute WP:RS for the purpose of establishing WP:N. First of all, not a single one of the links is ABOUT Bernstein. They are about hair transplantation, not Bernstein. They might indicate that hair transplantation is notable, not Bernstein. But I would argue that they don't even indicate that much, because four of these links do not constitute WP:RS of any kind. They are primary, non-neutral sources, not secondary, neutral sources. They aren't news stories--they're nothing more than press releases about each TV network's own programming. They are, in effect, advertising rather than news reporting. Since they are neither secondary nor impartial, they cannot be used as WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bernstein holds no academic position at Columbia. David Eppstein has uncovered the fact that Berstein is merely unpaid "volunteer faculty" at the Columbia Medical Center, rather than a professor at the university. [12] The phone numbers given in the link are for Bernstein's own medical office, rather than university phone numbers. There is no evidence that he even has an office at the university. Thus, any potential arguments that Bernstein might meet the conditions of WP:ACADEMIC are moot, since he holds no academic position in any conventional sense of the term. Qworty (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I agree that deletion is the clear outcome of all this, and the article's presentation of Bernstein as a "professor," without explaining the true nature of that professorship, adds to the already vivid picture of blatant promotionalism. For the record though, one need not hold an academic position (i.e. postsecondary faculty member -- paid or unpaid) to qualify under WP:ACAD. In certain areas e.g. medicine and computer science, there are researchers in private industry who have never been "on faculty" anywhere, yet whose work (e.g. measured by its citation by other researchers, effect on public discourse, etc.) qualify them for notability under WP:ACAD. EEng (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, but the latest problem is that this has now passed from a simple case of WP:COI into outright, blatant fraud. So much of the self-serving keep argument, both here and on the blocked user's talk page, has centered on the demonstrable falsehood that the guy, as originally described in the article, held a professorship at Columbia University, while only yesterday a previously uninvolved editor uncovered the truth: the guy is not at all a professor at Columbia, but only an unpaid, volunteer instructor at a medical center with ties to the university community. The prime argument for keep, so vigorously put forward by the blocked WP:SPA, had been that Bernstein was a very highly placed academic at Columbia, when the truth is that the university never hired him to do anything at all, whether it be to sweep floors or clean the cafeteria. What Bernstein may or may not tell his potential patients about his academic background is one thing, and certainly outside of our purview here, but the relevance for us is that self-serving arguments based on WP:ACADEMIC must be thoroughly exposed as hollow when it is determined by evidence uncovered by neutral, objective, previously uninvolved editors that a false academic claim has been made--not only in an article itself, but in the primary arguments against its well deserved deletion. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dealt with sensitively"? I suspect that you mean something different than Qworty thought you meant, and I think I agree with you. Axlrosen (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%, and I think that the WP:AUTO policy should be amended to warn users not only to avoid writing articles about themselves, but also to avoid defending those articles in AfD. It is one thing for a WP:SPA to write a WP:SPAM article for a commercial product from a completely WP:COI point of view, then come onto the AfD discussion to defend that non-notable spammy product. But when the spam being promoted is in fact a person, and the individual begins to monopolize other editors' valuable time with extremely insulting, WP:OWN arguments that are later determined by uninvolved editors to be false, and tries to start a flame war that gets so much red-hot attention that the WP:COI account achieves nothing more than getting itself blocked for all time, then it is only natural that, very unfortunately, there may be some hurt feelings involved. That's why I think it is so important that these non-notable individuals, whose grasp of WP policies is typically extremely weak to begin with, and who so often resist even the most rudimentary tutoring on policy, recuse themselves from writing articles about themselves, as well as recuse themselves from defending those articles. To my mind, there are few things as heart-breaking on the project as to see these self-promoting WP:SPA individuals coming onto an AfD to jump up and down in emotional distress as they cry out "I'm notable, I'm notable, yes I am, yes I truly am!" to the point that they get blocked, and succeed only in drawing wider public attention to the lack of notability that led to the situation in the first place. Anyone with a compassionate human heart would want that kind of tragic, self-destructive situation to be avoided at all costs. Qworty (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say the last 96 hours shows WP:AUTO's warning about the common fate, at AfD, of self-created articles -- "Beware that third-party comments may be most uncomplimentary" -- to be a bit of an understatement, to say the least. Too bad that attempts by the non-notable to write their own articles isn't itself considered notable, for then Dr. B could have an article, which would detail all the strained claims made on his behalf. But that would be too much fun, and would be kicking someone when he's down. We have better things to do.
WP:COI and particularly WP:AVOIDCOI specifically warn that COI's should steer clear of AfD. But vanity/COI editors are often the least informed about how things work around here. When someone is about to create a new article, he or she is invited, "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:WP:Your first article." If the novice editor does that, somewhere in there he'll read, "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends, nor pages that advertise..." Maybe that particular warning merits placing right out front on the new-article template itself, together with advice about how surprisingly effective editors are at sniffing out COI and how regularly self-promotion attempts end up embarrassing the person or entity they were intended to exalt. Or maybe that would do no good at all. I dunno.
EEng (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C7. Yes, he doesn't have a real academic position; is that relevant? Google news search found plenty of major media stories mentioning him (in NY Daily News, CBS News, ABC News, NY Times), but most of the mentions I looked at were on the trivial side. Nevertheless, I think this meets the "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" standard for #C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Crit 7 as I said at User_talk:Rbernstein (which is quite a strange read, let me tell you, but worth reviewing before you come to a conclusion here):
Putting aside the questions of what frequently quoted, conventional media, and as an academic expert mean, the idea that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may lend notability has to be applied in light of the text of Criterion 7 itself, which is that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my italics). A good measure of substantial impact outside academia might be the extent to which the subject's opinions stimulate response and discussion, especially from and among other experts, or policymakers. I doubt very much that anyone made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums. He's just a medical doctor who was willing to talk about his field. The substantial impact, if there was any, would have been limited to a possible increase in the size of his practice.
Please reconsider your opinion in this light. (The entirety of User_talk:Rbernstein is worth a skim if you have an hour or two to kill.) EEng (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My short answer is that notability is not the same as significance. We're not here to judge whether he has done anything of great significance, whether he's worthy, whether he deserves to be well known, but only whether he actually is well known. So if he's well known as the go-to guy that the TV news people call up when they need to talk to someone about hair, then he's well known, regardless of whether he even knows anything about hair. If he's a blatant and undeserving self-promoter, that's still irrelevant, as long as his self-promotion actually works. That is to say, we shouldn't allow him to carry on self-promoting here, but if other people have taken note of his self-promotion then we should take note of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the distinction between significance and notability, but that's not the issue here, and neither is his self-promotion on WP. Again, Crit 7 itself reads (my emphasis)
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
A note to Crit 7 reads (again, my emph)
Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The note suggests a path by which the criterion itself may (as the note says) be satisfied; to determine whether the media path actually leads to notability in Bernstein's case requires returning to Criterion 7 itself, and its requirement of "substantial impact." So, has the quoting of Bernstein had a substantial impact outside academia? I claim that while "substantial impact" could take many forms, a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) test for "substantial" is that there be some kind of response -- that someone oppose, support, comment on, or rely on something he said, outside the forum in which he said it. If the FDA issued a warning about hair graft X, and a national news show, reporting the story, said, "Bernstein, a leading expert, wrote as far back as December that X could be dangerous, to which Dr. J, developer of X, responded..." -- that at least might suggest substantial impact (with emphasis on suggest -- it's impact smoke, but still not impact fire). Bernstein has none of that. Appearing on a talk show, or the existence of quote marks around your words in a Men's Health puffpiece, isn't even "being quoted" in any meaningful sense. They're just interviews, which no one else picked up on or cared about. Thus no substantial impact, and no Criterion 7.
I'd be interested to know what you think.
EEng (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable despite his constant presentation of himself to the media. He is not the inventor or discoverer of Follicular Unit Transplantation, he is just an implementor. His lasting contribution is trivial, as are the mentions of him in the cited material. --Bejnar (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one presents a tougher policy question than usual, in that it's hard to ignore the fact that Dr. Bernstein most definitely meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, it's equally hard to ignore the fact that this article has always violated a core principle of WP:NOT, which is that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". It could easily have worked the other way-- a libelous or attack article about an otherwise notable person is just as subject to deletion. In this case, I think the consensus is that this person, because of the use of Wikipedia as a means of promotion, fails the one ground of WP:PEOPLE that really is up to the editors' opinion concerning encyclopedic suitability-- "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If someone with no association with the physician's hair restoration clinic were to author a future article, the outcome might be different. Ultimately, WP:NOT trumps WP:NOTE. Mandsford 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree. An article whose content is so self-promotional that a complete rewrite would be necessary i.e. nothing in it is worth keeping, can be deleted on that basis, but that's not what happened here. And that can happen without regard to the subject's notability; if a new, not-wholly-promotional article is begun, then the question of notability might come up if someone doubts it. On the other hand, abuse by the subject of WP for his own purposes means that the article might have to be purged of such content, and the editor sanctioned, but can have no bearing on a notability decision.
The R.B. article was not irretrievably promotional, so that played no part in my delete recommendation, and neither did the circus with the "Rbernstein" editor here and at User_talk:Rbernstein. I recommended delete because, in my opinion, Bernstein is notable neither under GNG nor any area guideline., and only for that reason.
There's clear consensus Bernstein doesn't meet ACAD, but you're the first to suggest he might qualify under GNG. So pease be specific -- and I mean specific -- about how he mets GNG, with careful reference to GNG's "Significant coverage" and reliability requirements, plus its requirements that there be multiple sources which are secondary and independent boith of the subject and of one another.
EEng (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to Qworty: Don't freak out! Let Mandsford answer first!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We've only got two users making substantive arguments after two weeks of debate, and neither argument is particularly strong or weak, so I don't really see any consensus emerging here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Jane Kendrick

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

Fails general notability guidelines — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Admittedly this article is currently in pretty poor shape. That said, the general notability guidelines that the nominator references indicates that a person or entity is notable if it has mutliple third pary reliable sources with nontrivial coverage--and WP:WEB indicates that web content is notable if its "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries [and] websites...."
    This person's personal writing has attracted not only local interest (not only in Arizona but also in the heart of the Mormon corridor up in Salt Lake City) but also national and international coverage.
    (That said, only personal information should be referenced to Kendrick's own writings and more information needs to be culled from available 3rd-party sources.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (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) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the OP, but not the relister. Can't see how she is incredibly notable, except for being interviewed once. Not notable enough for article which talks mostly about her blog. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't be sure, but it seems that OP seems to discount news coverage from Mormon Times, etc. Such coverage is more than local (comparable to a neighborhood Seventh Day Adventist journal in some town in the U.S. Midwest, or a neighborhood Jewish journal in Brooklyn or a neighborhood Muslim journal in Detroit). Mormons make up 1.7% of the U.S. population, according to the recent Pew survey, the exact number of American Jews and a bit less than twice as many American Muslims, so such coverage would obviously be comparable to mainstream journalistic coverage in the Adventist, the Jewish, or the Muslim press.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added later (...To give my comment more granularity: Along with the subject's being interviewed on network morning news (NBC's Today) in '08 and by Interfaith Voices in 2010, in an article surveying the Mormon blogosphere in the peer-reviewed journal BYU Studies, Emily W. Jensen, a reporter for Mormon Times whose beat encompasses this area, singled out Kendrick's blog along with one other mom blog as "nationally recognized.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no problem with "Mormon" coverage. I don't care what the percentage of the US population is LDS for this topic. Just reading the article, there is nothing in it that demonstrates her notability. All it does is say she is a columnist and has a blog; that doesn't make her notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm----you're probably right. Although I don't read mommy blogs, I'm sure their readership outpaces the political blogs I do check in on frequently (my probably sharing with many WPdian's "systemic bias" in this regard... [Addendum: Here is a talkpage section devoted to this topic.]); IAC, I'll at least cite references for the information that had already been contributed to this article and then in addition will source a few third-party source that esteem Ms. Kendrick (aka C Jane) of note as an author. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thalia Grace

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

Violates WP:N. Note that this character is only a main character ONCE, and basically never is notable again. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Pass

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

Article constitutes nothing more than a list of miscellaneous information that would be better served being mentioned in their respective articles for each game involved. At this junction, however, the article is almost-entirely unsourced, and does absolutely nothing to establish stand-a-lone notability. The lead-in section is nothing more than an unsourced definition for a very vague term which could apply to any number of online systems where access was restricted - whereby Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wikitionary is. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 16:22, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 'pass' is needed for access to lots of things, that one of them is online does not make it notably different from an office pass, a library pass, or a backwards pass. MLA (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sédilot

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

This article is about an early French colonist in Quebec which does not make any assertion of notability. I can find genealogical sites that list him [13], [14], but they do not provide any information aside from some documentation of his life. He is listed in this old book. This self-published book provides pretty much the same information as the genealogical sites. Whpq (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no good reason for retaining the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made a modest improvement of the article. Google Book searches for "Louis Sedilot" and "Marie Grimoult" suggest there is much additional material that could be relevant to the article, but it is either in French or not available in a full-text format. In any case "one of the first French colonists in Quebec" is an adequate claim to notability, and the significant coverage in reliable independent sources carries the article through WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Burlage

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

This article is about a musician for which I am unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. A google news search turns up a lot of event announcements, no coverage about him. There is a mention of a "Guy Burlage" in this NY Times article but it is unclear if it is the same person, and in any case, falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WildVenture

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

Fails the general notability guideline and WP:ORG. I can find no references to it in any news articles. It is also written like an advert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm could be hesitant about this because of WP:CLUB, since the scope of this organization can be considered international. However, it clearly states that the organization has to meet both standards, and the second one just happens to be about multiple third-party sources. This is something that the article lacks and something that I could not find. Of the five sources that the article currently has, one is the organization's website. The other four don't mention the organization, or include a passing mention if they do. This shows that the organization is not notable, since sources are really what determine notability. --Slon02 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (2011 film)

Joker (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced future film - fails WP:NFF. Has been previously prodded - was unprodded with no comment. Has had {{unref}} removed previously. PamD (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Withdraw nomination: has now been provided with multiple references and although it's still not clear whether photography has started it seems notable and likely to materialise. PamD (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no evidnce yet that the film is "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" as required by WP:NFF. One of the added refs, the one which mentions filming planned for 20 Jan to 20 Feb, is about a different film. PamD (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent catch. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With repects, the SNG NFF is not the final nor absolute arbiter, as both policy and guideline allow consideration of anticpated future events. But might you agree that taking it off of mainspace and placing it in incubation for continued work could be an otherwise reasonable option? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an Akshay Kumar film, this is a high profile film. I interpret this interview dated jan 24 as saying filming has begun as the earlier news reports stated. ("Akshay Kumar is being directed by Farah's husband Shirish Kunder"). Kind of confirmed by this ("Shirish kunder directed ‘Joker’ is in the making") and this. There is enough GNG for us to keep this article. We can Afd it again in a few months, if the film stalls--Sodabottle (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh... if filming has commenced, then we worry less about NFF and more about WP:NF. I agree with your reasoning. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stanley

Not notable. Pastor at a church, and books of unknown/questionable publishing. This was nominated before in Jan. 2005[18], but was never closed. Someone seriously tamperred with the AfD process in and it was never closed or debated, view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stanley for details. The thechurchreport.com lists him as influential, but searching "thechurchreport.com" at yahoo I get 40 hits. He fails WP:BIO. Arbusto 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominator Arbustoo improperly deleted the vote by 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) with the following summary "rv this IP that has hit every single one of my AfDs and ONLY my AfDs", however, user 205.157.110.11 has participated in a number of AfDs not nominated by Arbustoo, so that accusation is baseless and without merit. In any case, the proper thing to do would not be to delete the users vote and comment, but rather make a comment under his vote suggesting that he is only voting to spite Arbustoo, if that is what Arbustoo seems to be claiming by his deletion. Vivaldi (talk) 07:54, 5 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanaxtasy

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

The artlce is for a digital download single (of songs previously available on a 'best of' album); it's not notable in anyway.  Doktor  Wilhelm  14:38, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noron theory


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

All my searches for reliable sources on this subject, have failed to find any reference to "Noron theory" (or anything related) outside of wikipedia and its numerous mirrors. This strongly implies that no WP:RSs on the subject exist. In particular, this "theory" fails to be WP:N (if it exists at all).TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC) TR 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that blurbs and ads are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Did you click on his link? It's not an ad - it's a book. ISBN 1156622859 122.104.146.215 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ad for a book by a bookseller. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Are you suggesting I am going to have to buy the book to determine whether this article is verifiable? 122.104.146.215 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or find the book in a library. Simply knowing that there is a book that says it discusses "Noron theory" is not enough to establish notability. For all we know the book may simply reprint what is in the current wikipedia article. In fact, looking at the excerpt given, it seems likely that that book is just an integral reprint of the the category:time travel.TR 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Books LLC does seem to reprint Wikipedia content. Per WP:BURDEN you need to supply the relevant quote from the book and indicate how it relates to the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have retrieved the book from my university library. I cannot retype the discussion of the Noron Theory here - it will take too long. The discussion would appear to be quite different from what is on Wikipedia however. Anyone have some ideas? --haxmax (talk) 11:29, 01 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) [reply]
Burden is still on you to produce a reliable source. Also, don't forget to log on and properly sign your comments. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why more discussion? Consensus is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Because according to Noron Theory, we live in retarded times. Yakushima (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article originator is WP:SPA, and the sole book source IDed above is reported by Google Books to be sourced entirely from Wikipedia [20]. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and not even notable fringe. Yakushima (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone recently notified me of this article, and I had to create an account just to comment here. Although I was aware that my theory had been circulating the halls of Cambridge for some time, I had no idea it had penetrated Wikipedia (I am still unsure whether to be flattered or insulted). I had mentioned the theory briefly in lectures at Cambridge prior to transferring to ALMA, and obviously one of my keen students has produced an article from the scant information from me. The present article slightly misrepresents the true Noron theory (which is much more involved than what is presented in this article); nevertheless, the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in). The Noron theory has been published in peer reviewed journals (ESO Messenger), but not under the name 'Noron theory', which is the code name I gave it after the passing of my cat, Noron (I have never heard of Jayesh). Should the article be kept, I would be happy to transfer some of my research into the article over the next few weeks/months but I cannot make promises regarding dates as I have enough deadlines I need to worry about. RichardHills (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)— RichardHills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Well, that basically confirms that this article does not meet the notability requirements of WP:N.TR 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also ESO messenger is not a peer reviewed journal, see [21].TR 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment RichardHills: "the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in)." Those must be some very tight circles. Googling on "Richard Hills" and "retarded time" in google scholar, books, and groups produces no discussion whatsoever. Is it not just that the theory is under a different name, but also all the terms used in the theory? Can you give us a theory name under which it is notable, by Wikipedia's (possibly insulting, at least to RichardHill) standards? Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read the book which is listed above, and it would appear to confirm the scientific rigour of the Noron Theory. I have scanned the relevant chapter of the book, but it cannot be uploaded here as evidence. Also, I notice the comments for R. Hills, who states that his theory is been largely accepted by his peers. Christopher tomline (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— Christopher tomline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply There is no need to upload the scan of the book for any kind of verification. As far as we can tell, the book section that addresses this supposed Noron Theory derives from the AfD Wikipedia article in question. The book is from a print-on-demand "publisher" -- it costs them next to nothing to list a non-existent book on Amazon, in hopes that somebody will (perhaps only by accident) do a one-click impulse buy. It also costs them next to nothing to print the Wikipedia articles out with some boilerplate and send it in the mail. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fringe work. Eeekster (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to jump on Hills. He said right out that he created an account to come here to discuss, so he wasn't trying to sneak in as an SPA. The other accounts surely are SPAs but there's no reason to think they are Hill -- maybe some students -- I get the clear feeling Hill knows nothing about WP:N and came here because someone directed him to the discussion. This is a clear delete so let's drop it. EEng (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I said "keep" and this is not an SPA.Haxmax (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. .... I have been a registered user for three years. How does this make me a "newly registered user"? Haxmax (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed a clear delete, as you;ll see in the next few days. And you are a veritable archetype of an SPA [22], plus there's something fishy going on with you as well. [23] [24] EEng (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be deleted promptly. It contains a link to my web page at the Cavendish and claims that I originated this theory, which I did not. The article has just been pointed out to me and I consider that it has no scientific merit whatsoever. The entries above purporting to come from me are not from me. If there is a way of banning from Wikipedia the impostor who posted those entries, then I suggest that you consider doing that. It is obviously unacceptable to pretend to be somebody else in order to try to gain credibility for their unsupported theories. Richard Hills, Prof of Radio Astronomy, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.0.129 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that any of the claimants is genuine. Suggest put it on AN/I and delete swiftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure if this is the real richard hills or some imposter. there are now two people claiming to be richard hills poting comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.248.131 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Mandsford 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sift Heads

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

Unremarkable game, A7 does not apply. No sources that indicate notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow this article stay. This game means alot to people around the world and almost everyone in my community loves it. Please don't delete it! Please! I'm begging you!- tyler775

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

The result was speedy delete. G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melted Music

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

Contested PROD. This label having produced zero albums to date is not yet notable. Also, of the references provided, #2 is not independent of the subject, #3 is a blog, #4 is the subject's Twitter site, and I don't recognize the link in #5, but sites ending in .ws typically aren't reliable in my experience.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bar None (nightclub)

Bar None (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability. The only hint at notability is a notoriety inherited from an earlier establishment at the same address, but no sources can be found to verify that notoriety, and if sources could be found, the article should be written about the former notorious establishment rather than the current non-notable establishment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I love me some old school punk rock, but notability is not inherited. I saw some of these same bands at other no-name clubs, and GG Allin would play anywhere they would let him get away with all the broken glass, bodily fluids, etc that accompanied his shows. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fcuking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.144.20 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space at Chase

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

Assertions of notability are not backed up by references, nor can any significant coverage be found to cite. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought of doing that but wasn't sure if it was allowed. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan

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

This smells like a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. The creator and main contributor, User:BrittyGirl, is a single-purpose account, probably the article's subject himself. Anyway, I don't see how this meets WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Winning a major award in your industry -- an Academy Award, a Grammy, the Turner Prize, etc. -- tends to grant notability, as such awards are widely publicised, and those they are awarded to tend to be well-known in their business, and thus will have coverage in their industry's publications. However, I'm finding it difficult to find any third-party reliable source coverage beyond the mere fact of the award. Can anyone else help dig out a cite, perhaps to an industry publication? -- The Anome (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, too, whether there actually is a source for him winning the award. A Google News search for this guy returns zero results. --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on what I have found so far. The article claims that he was credited with winning a Grammy for Mary J. Blige's album Growing Pains. However, a search at Grammy.com (scroll down for "Past Winners Search") for the title "growing pains" indicates that the album won Best Contemporary R&B Album, but the credited winners were "Mary J. Blige, artist. Dave Pensado, Jaycen Joshua & Kuk Harrell, engineers." Since O'Ryan is not mentioned as one of the engineers credited for this award, this is a significant detriment to the claim of his notability. While the subject does appear to have worked on notable albums and for notable recording artists, his usual role as a recording engineer does not tend to put him in the public eye, nor has he received any significant media coverage about himself personally as far as I can find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Without a cite to back up the Grammy Award, or any other news coverage to establish notability per WP:BIO, I'm afraid this looks like a delete, unless someone can come up with a cite in the next week or so. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The GRammy "win" was actually for a 2008 album. See [25]. He is not listed in the award credits. Not everyybody who works on an award winning album is considered to have won the award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't find any significant coverage, nor can I verify that the subject was credited for a Grammy for his work with Mary J. Blige. O'Ryan is listed as one of the Teenage Dream engineers on the official Grammy site (see Category 2, "Album of the Year"), and the description under the heading makes it seem like he would get an award if the album wins in a couple weeks. Anyway, that's all I could come up with.  Gongshow Talk 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but the question is which of these millions do merit a Wikipedia article. some will, but how to we tell, given that their contribution is not as prominently publicized as the artists themselves?. To what extent can we go by their work on a notable project where their contributions, though not as important as the prize-winning artist, were obviously essential?. I'm asking these as questions, because I don't claim to know the answers. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The author removed all content except the AfD notice, and I have speedy-deleted it under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchi Dass

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

nn puff piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opium dream estate

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

The article appears to fail to address the WP:BAND guidelines due to a lack of potential sources to demonstrate the significant impact required or being published under a notable record label. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BVC Airlines

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

Neutral Was tagged as a CSD, but it does have an assertion of notability. It did find this which seems to indicate that the airline existed, however it is unclear whether they still operate. Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The sites look like clones of legitimate sites, with a news article on BVC added. http://saudiarabicnews.com/ is a clone of http://arabnews.com/, http://afrikghana.com/ is a clone of http://www.afrik-news.com/ and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamic funeral. NW (Talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view on the human corpse

Islamic view on the human corpse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research paper Travelbird (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that I liked the use of 'ascendants', but I've delinked it because the target appeared to be some astrological stuff that was hardly likely to be the intended result. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the problems with the article are, they can be fixed through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. The subject itself is significant and probably notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already got two on the subject... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'd see those as articles about closely related, but distinct subjects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. All of these seem to be to do with when someone of an Islamic persuasion dies. They approach it from a different angle and use different styles, but the basic manual looks to have the same instructions. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, these should be merged into two articles (or one). --JaGatalk 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible merger to Albanian Resistance of World War II. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Albania

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

Discussion was misplaced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APOX, thus moved. Travelbird (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One line page thats only been edited by two users. No notability. Delete or and merge into an albanian page. --K1eyboard (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gene93k's point above: yes, this is highly notable, but no, it does not require a separate article. Yakushima (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It just requires expansion. The resistance lasted 5 years and this was the final act. There is some notability as to the fact that there is a lot of discussion in Albania as to whether it was a chosen date to have the same liberation day with the Yugoslavs or because it just happened to be that day. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also added a book from historian Bicoku that treats exclusively about this day and the falsification of documents to claim that the last German soldier to leave Albania did so in November 29, while this is not corresponding to the historical truth. You may delete for now as I don't have access to the book, but I find copy pasted pieces of the book in several blogs such as this, which I cannot rely on for now. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about liberating Albania from the communists, or from the Ottoman Empire? 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That thought occurred to me also, but neither of those involved partisans fighting to liberate a nation from an occupying force. In the case of the Communists, it was a relatively peaceful transition from one Albanian government to another, and Albania had cut its ties with the Soviets many years before that. As for the Ottoman Empire, the creation of Albania and other states was something imposed by the victors on the vanquished after the Central Powers surrendered. Like Yakushima, I'm not opposed to this being about what's referred to there as Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit". Maybe this can be renamed Liberation Day (Albania), and we can be done with it. Looking back on it, I think that the person who created this was simply wanting to write a sentence or two about why November 29 is a holiday, rather than the CliffNotes version of the history of the Albanian resistance movement. I'm not sure why people think that this is the first time that the topic has ever been written about on Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I as a newbie, created this article, and didn't think it would create such a mess. It simply is the Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit", as the Independence Day is November 28, 1912 (Albanian Declaration of Independence). I agree to moving it to Liberation Day (Albania). --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Well, sometimes people search wrong, and read too lazily, and jump to conclusions. People like, well, me. Sometimes,[29] anyway. :-( Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did some expansion --Vinie007 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my original !vote for "obvious redirect", based on Vinie007's excellent work, since that's no longer an obvious suggestion, and improvements should be encouraged. To some extent, though, I agree with Nipsonanomhmata-- it would work just as well to make Vinie's information as a section in the other article (a merge) and to preserve the title Liberation of Albania as a redirect to that section, i.e., a redirect to "Albanian Resistance of World War II#Liberation Day". Just some thoughts there. Mandsford 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Somauroo

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

High school student that won a couple of school and student awards, however not nearly enough to assert real notability. Travelbird (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meryem Uzerli

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

Actress that played minor roles only in several films. Fails:Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Travelbird (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is one of the main characters of Muhteşem Yüzyıl which is the most watched soap opera in Turkey now.[30] Hürrem (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hürrem.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on her name gives 633,000 hits. That is enough to establish that she is not a unknown actress. And infact it shows that even though she might have only had one major role she has with that role established the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actress also has an Turkish wikipedia article which also shows that she has reached fame in her native country and are in fact a actress which should have a wikipedia article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that fact that this is not really a valid keep or delete reason: the Turkish article was created on January 26, 2011 on the same day the English language article was. By your reasoning I guess that would be a reason to delete it? Travelbird (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally ignoring the 633,000 hits reason. Typical of the deletionists..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also even though the turkish article might have been created it has not been deleted or anything eve though it has been a week since its creation there. It proves that in Turkey the subject has notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:GOOGLEHITS it's an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour road

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

Minor road in Hong Kong. (see [31]. Not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by OlEnglish. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZURA

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

Non notable property development Travelbird (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Lahiri

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

WP:AUTO by non-notable Indian dermatologist, who is a WP:SPA for self-promotion. Tagged for notability for a year and a half now without any improvement. Most of the sources provided by subject have turned out to be bogus and have been removed. There is no actual WP:RS to demonstrate notability of any sort. Qworty (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnie Merrey

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

Actor that played a minor part in several episodes of a drama series in 1996. Doesn't seem to have played any roles since. Travelbird (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APOX

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

5 day old newly released computer game without any assertion of particular notability. Travelbird (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer for a week or so, given the relative novelty of this game, it's entirely possible that it WILL be notable (through mutliple, in-depth RS reviews) within the next week or several in-depth reviews. That is, if it's not already notable via what Google News has been able to find on it so far. At any rate, it's not clear to me why this article was immediately tagged for deletion, rather than sourcing and notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding Defer - It seems lately that review sites have been slower about catching up on reviews, seems a bit early to nomination for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a little research I turned up two references, one from a source considered reliable at WP:VG/RS and one that looks actually better than the first to me, and which I've proposed to be included at WP:VG/RS. With it already having attracted arguably WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, I'm pretty sure it's notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So far all of the sources provided simply prove that the game exists. None of them show any notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really want to get into an argument, but you don't seems to know what notability is. Most of the sources are simply redacted versions of the release announcement. this comes closer to a review but is still rather short. WP:N also requires "more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Notability need to be long term. The article also needs to show how this particular game is notable i.e. what sets it apart from all the other games out there. By the standards set out above, every commercially published video game would be notable as press releases and blog reviews can be found covering it. Travelbird (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On Wikipedia, all "notability" really means is "should we have an article on this?", and WP:GNG defines that as about independent reliable source coverage. Your claim that the article needs to assert notability is specifically false; "assertion of notability" is not a part of WP:N, it's a matter of CSD A7, which does not apply to this game because it is not a person, individual animal, organization, or Web content. Wikipedia's notability rules are sufficiently fascist and privileging of the viewpoint of soulless organizations that exist to make people like Rupert Murdoch richer without arrogating additional, consensus-not-in-evidence criteria about whether the sources say the topic is important. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, gamershell is a reliable source. No, a press release isn't independent coverage. Co-Optimus needs vetting for reliability. However, how about Rock Paper Shotgun's interview with Mark Currie of BlueGiant? Trivial piece at indiegames.com. I need to see one more piece of coverage - search continues. Marasmusine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (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) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the Co-Optimus source is unlikely to pass, but the other two sources are reliable. Combined with the small indiegames.com found by Marasmusine I'd say this is Stub or Start-worthy for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently non-commercial in tone. Doubtlessly up a bit sooner than an article on this topic should have been, but I'd advocate use of the rule of reason here: "Is Wikipedia better served by the inclusion or deletion of this article?" The piece as it stands has some early sourcing going and may be of use to WP users; it's deletion would not advance the encyclopedia project, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parade (group)

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

Promotional article for band without released album Travelbird (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Payne

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

NN candidate for local office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Travelbird (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eflak Stancu

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

Delete - Clearly a hoax. Probably made up by a turkish fan. Mrromaniac (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 question here is not notablility, so however many reliable sources won't help. Our question is, is this topic unified enough as a concept to be encyclopedic? Unfortunately no. The article, as it stands, is inherently WP:OR. As Nipsonanomhmata mentions, the sources must show that such a well-defined concept exists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somalian Genocide

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

Personal opinions / OR Travelbird (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the existing article with one which is sourced to BBC, Times, human rights orgs and African media. I also flagged it for rescue. Please take another look and see whether it now should survive the AFD, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news archive search for "Somalia" AND "genocide" brings up thousands of results. [34] The references added to the article are already enough to prove this exist, and gets coverage. Dream Focus 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I too did a Google news archive search for "Somalia genocide" AND "Somalian genocide" and got a maximum of only 60 results. I also did a Google web search for "Somalian genocide" and it initially claimed that there were more than 4,000 results but when I clicked through to the last page there were only 370 results in total and at least 225 of those were spawned out of Wikipedia.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced. The article is certainly a lot better--but it does not clarify, for instance, which killing by which group of which other group in which time is supposed to be called "Somalian genocide." That there are lots of hits for the combination of words is not a surprise considering the area's history, and that there are commentators and NGOs that call events or series of events a genocide is also not very surprising--but that's hardly the same as having a well-documented and objectively established genocide of which, unfortunately, we have plenty. See Armenian Genocide, for instance. Or, for comparison, Croatia–Serbia genocide case, where there is a court case alleging a genocide--that's a far cry from observers and some media calling it by such a proper name. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are raising a useful point, but "genocide" is really a term of art and historical usage, and does not require any government or other authority to approve its use. Armenian Genocide is an example of one so-called because enough people have called it that for long enough; no one was ever tried for war crimes and Turkey has never accepted the label. Your concerns go more to weight issues than inclusion, and could be addressed by including a reliable source saying that what's happening in Somalia is not genocide.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just would like to add that genocide scholars have formally recognised the Armenian genocide. Moreover, many countries, and a number of States in the United States, have also formally recognised the Armenian genocide as fact. Thus far no genocide scholar has claimed that there is a "Somalian genocide" and no country has formally recognised that there has been a "Somalian genocide".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not arguing that people can't use it in this context, far from it. What I'm asking is a sharply-defined definition of the subject of the article supported by reliable sources--more than a Google search or a few mentions. I'll go through some of those references in the next few days, but that's something that the keepers should do as well, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you Drmies. Genocide is a serious subject that needs to be backed up by genocide scholars. Backing it up with quotes from individuals, newspapers, and the rest of the media isn't enough.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely OR. One particular citation got my attention. The one alleging genocide against "fighters". If they are fighting in a war then it isn't a genocide. But that is only one issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a difference how many newspapers or individuals claim genocide. The genocide scholars have to recognise that it is a genocide. If it isn't recognised as a genocide by scholars who specialise in genocide (fully backed up by their citations) then it hasn't been classified as such. When you do a search for "Somalian genocide" on Google Scholar not one scholarly citation is returned that claims there is a "Somalian genocide". Therefore, according to genocide scholars no "Somalian genocide" has been formally recognised yet. If it hasn't been formally recognised as such, even if/when it has happened, then "Somalian genocide" is just an allegation.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, Catherne Besteman, professor of anthology at Colby College is already cited in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catherne Besteman is not a genocide scholar. She doesn't specialize in the study of genocide. There are scholars who specialize in genocide.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article as stands meets Wikipedia notability amd reliable source requirements. Statements that "its not a genocide" because some professor or another didn't say so, or a professor who did say so is not qualified, are effectively original research and synthesis, unless you have a source to back them up. If you do, suggest we add it to the article. In any event, deleting it is the wrong way to go. If we have a neutral article representing all sides of the issue, people can decide for themselves whether its a genocide or not. No article, they can't. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Republic of Turkey still refers to the officially recognised Armenian Genocide as an alleged genocide (because the government of Turkey is still in denial). However, the Armenian Genocide is formally recognised by genocide scholars and by many nations. If there is to be an article about a "Somalian Genocide" that has not yet been recognised by genocide scholars, or by any country, then the word "alleged" needs to be in the title. Not because I am a denialist but because no formal recognition has yet happened (almost four years after Catherne wrote her article).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly book from Indiana University Press with sections on Somalian genocide. Oh, and here's one where Boutros Boutros Ghali in his 1999 memoir refers to a Somalian genocide According to his Wikipedia bio, "was a Fulbright Research Scholar at Columbia University from 1954 to 1955, Director of the Centre of Research of the Hague Academy of International Law from 1963 to 1964, and Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Law at Paris University from 1967 to 1968", before becoming Secretary General of the UN in 1991.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not one of them is a scholar that specializes in the study of genocide. Here's a book that says that there was no genocide in Somalia [35]. Do a search for "not one of genocide" in the book itself and it will highlight the sentence on page 21 where it says "The Somalian case was, of course, not one of genocide." It makes no difference in any case. No country has yet recognised a "Somalian Genocide" so it doesn't matter what anybody says because they are all just allegations.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are finding information which belongs in the article, and I will add it--it is not a reason for deletion. Note our Genocide article includes information on disputed instances, such as Sudan. You are now arguing that in order to be notable an alleged genocide must have been recognized as such by one or more other countries, but this is not existing Wikipedia policy.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a virtual world full of inconsistency and information that is not factual. It's more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, when we search for things on Google it is information that is stuffed in to Wikipedia that is usually listed first. If Wikipedia says that there is a Somalian genocide then that will convince many people that there was a Somalian genocide. However, if no genocide scholar and no country recognises the fact it is just another allegation listed by Wikipedia that is disguised as fact. I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Thank you for the opportunity.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSA Records

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

Non-notable record company. References are to trivial mentions or primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the band is licenced, has produced matierial from numerous bands, and have distribution deals in New York, New Jersey, and are growing into new markets. All of this can be evidenced through photographs, and receipts. Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. The pursuit of a spot on wikipedia is evidence of this, as well as its spot on the websites listed on the page. They list the label, and recognize it on Primary websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (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) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Franks

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

I was unable to find references supporting notability.... PRODed and PROD deleted without any enhancement or comment. Ariconte (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable (band)

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

Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music. None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."


Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.[reply]

Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better." Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.


Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP." Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.

No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.

Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)

  • Don't Delete. Furthermore

7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music."

Response: Disagreed and addressed in the previous entry.

Among the sources in the Unstable article is links to a Newspaper interview, Radio appearance, major venue pages in which the band has played and is featured upon the website. (Photos, aka evidence of performance showing it's not some 'claim' making it a necessary, a primary outside the band website, reliable, and and NOT self promotional). I must ask again, where in the world do you see the grounds to call any of the sources self promotional? They in no way promote the band. The use of the album pages (such as amazon link and other store link) where the album is sold was only added as a source to verify that the album is distributed on numerous markets and not 'burn it at home' album. If that use was seen as self promotional I guaranteed it was not the intention.

Because Cricket, yo obviously don't take the time to read before posting I'm reposting my original response to your bogus claim. "The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. " -Makk3232

Reply: For the record, I do not take deletion reviews lightly sir and am better known in the article rescue arena. I took an hour out of my day yesterday to review all sources provided and did some research on my own, frankly in hopes of saving it. When I took the time to look at the 'About' page at metal-archives.com I did note that they are "picky" about their submissions - but that doesn't matter. A band can still self-submit to the website, point being that the website does not write about a band on their own, they merely list the band's information - and that's all well and fine to get information about a band - but it does not make a band notable because they are listed on a self-submitted website. Same for Myspace, Facebook, ReverbNation, etc. Self-submitted - again - all certainly reliable sources for information - but not to prove notability. All other links provided are trivial mentions of this band. i.e. appearances, etc. Now if there were more extensive independent third-party write-ups of this band in magazines, ezines, newspapers, independent album reviews, and such, I would certainly reconsider. At this time I can only find one "somewhat" independent review at nocleansinging.com. And because anyone can release an album and distribute it, that does not automatically make anyone notable. But in all fairness, I have extended an invitation for a more specialized peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I understand you take them seriously as do I. I hope my defense of the article isn't being perceived as personal, my comments are only to back the relevance up. I do appreciate the extension of the article. I'm going to find some more sources on the internet I know are around and I'm going to update the article with the appropriate content. This is life or death to me, I hope you understand my firmness on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your position. I have fought to save many an article. Just in case, please do consider copying the current content from this article into a subpage so when more sources are found and/or this band becomes more notable, the article can be recreated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:MUSIC, they would need multiple album releases on a notable independent record label. They do not have this. The label itself is not independent of the band, making their sole album self-released (I note the label itself is up for deletion). Metal Archives has never been regarded as passing WP:RS, and even if it did would not constitute extensive coverage that would count towards notability, being a site that exists to catalogue every metal band to ever release an album. NoCleanSinging also fails WP:RS. That leaves nothing whatsoever to support the band's inclusion; the article is essentially here as publicity for a non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseRead the previous posts before making a statement. All things mentioned have been addressed, and a promise was made to add new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above posts have been read (before my original comment) and in fact have been responded to. A promise to find more sources is good, but actually needs to happen; in their absence the conclusion has to be to delete, per WP:MUSIC. Also, sign your posts. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP with 2 days left on a BLP prod. If someone wishes to source this article I'll be happy to restore it and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hemion

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. He's nothing more than a guy who opened his checkbook five times and paid notorious vanity press iUniverse to print five "books." As WP:SPS, they cannot be used to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Elizabeth Day

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University)

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the fact that it is questionable whether this individual college library is actually notable, the article is entirely original research Travelbird (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie)

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film of questionable notability. The only sources provided are a forum and a promotional website. Travelbird (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reference have been added, please review before deletion to determin if this page can be saved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remy.range (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Youtube & forums are not reliable third party sources. Travelbird (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New media journalism

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

No sources to indicate that this term is used and is notable. All the citations are to sources within the Wikiproject. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It quotes a significant amount of text from another Wiki article. Also, no indication of notability in the article itself. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana West (lactation consultant)

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

Non-notable, promotional biography. Only claim to notability is as the author of a "national bestselling book" although no citation can be found to support that claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Beyond all of her other accomplishments, Diana West’s book Defining your Own Success: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery’’ is the definitive text on the subject for the worldwide lactation community. For that reason alone, I would expect her to have a page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP http://www.llli.org/books/bfar.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBNovDec01p222.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug08p27a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One Keep will do. Citing the book's publisher as a reliable source about the import of this book is hardly useful. (Please review guidelines on primary sources). There is no citation to state that Defining your Own Success... is the definitive text on the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no citation except the one I added yesterday and these ones... - ManicSpider (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which citation you are referring to, since you completely restructured the article making it impossible to see what particular citation you might have added. I don't see that any of the citations in the present article define West's text as the "definitive source" on the topic, and the link you added here merely indicates that the book received some reviews. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the article and click on the tab "View History" you can see all the individual edits, labelled with what I was doing. You can then look at those edits to see what changes I made. The sources were added after the restructure, and are at the top. However, for ease of reference I'm referring specifically to note 14. I admit it doesn't use the exact phrase "definitive source", but I think getting hung up on that phrase is unhelpful as it was a contribution by a participant in this discussion and not something we're required to look for under the guidelines. - ManicSpider (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not being a member of the subject website, I can't view the contents of that review. I'll assume good faith and stipulate that it is a positive review of the book. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused by your comment as I'm not a member of the site either, but I now see that my work has a subscription which is why I'm able to view it. I'll see if I can find a link that is actually useful for other people ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Diana west has made a huge impact on the lives of countless families with her books and her support of breastfeeding after breast reduction. I may be doing this all wrong, but I just want to support keeping this page up. It seems to me what needs to be defined in some way is the value of the information in her books; what she has written. There are lactation reference books available, and Ms. West's are part of that group. Many La Leche League Leaders keep the book Making More Milk for the mothers that show up to their support meetings. IMO what has made her books so valuable and worthy of a page here is the successful intervention they have effected in many struggling nursing dyads. Does the voice of the mother she helps need to get much louder to be heard? I do not claim to know Diane West, but I think Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinamoon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Rinamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • COMMENT: Hi, all. I’m Diana West, IBCLC, the person who is the subject of this discussion. Although I did not write the original page, I’m weighing in to address some of the questions about my credentials that have been raised because I probably know the answers best. I did not post earlier because I worried that it would be inappropriate to post on my own behalf, but I have been reassured that it is ok to do if I can provide solid information to address the issues that have been raised.

I can certainly understand your questions about my validity. You’ve never heard of me, probably because you haven’t breastfed personally or you don’t have kids who are breastfed. Or breastfeeding went easily for you or the women in your life. In my field of lactation, though, I’ve have become increasingly well-known over the last 15 years as a leading expert through my publications and lectures because my work has been helpful to breastfeeding women and professionals all over the world. I'm pretty down-to-earth and never make a big deal about it, so, as you can imagine, to have it come into doubt is really surreal.

Interestingly, the book that seems to be best establishing my credibility here is my least known, but it certainly was seminal. Defining Your Own Success: Breastfeeding after Breast Reduction Surgery was the first book to discuss this topic of breastfeeding after breast surgery and to encourage women to breastfeed even when they didn’t have full milk supplies. Although it is ten years old now, it is still the only and best resource on this topic. The review from the Journal of Human Lactation substantiating this fact has already been posted. In 2008, I co-authored with a plastic surgeon, Breastfeeding After Breast and Nipple Procedures, a more extensive clinical monograph for health care professionals addressing and expanding the topic. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[1] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. The accompanying website I created, Breastfeeding After Reduction, was recommended in the most recent edition of the popular What to Expect When You Are Expecting book.[2]

My last two books have been even more successful. The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk, by McGraw-Hill[3] is very highly regarded because it was a landmark book -- first ever on the topic of low milk supply and very helpful to many women and lactation professionals. It is ranked highly on Amazon. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[4] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. There are many blogs and websites raving about Making More Milk,[5] including People Magazine’s online blog.[6] It is recommended on About.com,[7] Suite 101,[8] and Blisstree.[9] This book has been referenced four times in the landmark 2010 lactation textbook, Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple by Nancy Mohrbacher.[10] [11] [12] [13] It was included as a top breastfeeding reference book in the 2009 edition of 25 Things Every Nursing Mother Needs to Know by Kathleen Huggins and Jan Ellen Brown, published by Harvard Common Press.[14]

My most recent book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, 8th edition, by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House,[15] is selling exceptionally well (regularly ranked under 1,000 on Amazon), not because it was already a well-known title from previous editions, but because my co-authors and I completely rewrote it from scratch, expanded it, and brought it into the 21st century with a contemporary, humorous tone. It is the first time it has been published by a true publishing house and it was the first time the authors were credited – which was done because our names are well-known it helps to sell the books. It was a national bestseller in July 2010 in USA Today, the first breastfeeding book to reach this pinnacle.[16] The reviews have been outstanding, clearly establishing it as a leading resource for breastfeeding mothers (Motherwear blog, July, 2010[17]; Breastfeeding Moms Unite blog[18]; Strocel blog[19]; iVillage[20]; and many more). It was listed as a must-have product for new mothers on Pregnancy 360, in Pregnancy Magazine’s website.[21] The professional review by the International Lactation Consultant Association is currently in press and will appear in the next issue.

To address the question about my not being lead author, I'm second only because we had three equal authors and drew straws to see who would be listed first -- it's definitely not that I contributed less that the first listed author. The article that we wrote, Tinker to Evers to Chance in Breastfeeding Today, January, 2010, discussed our writing process.[22]

The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk and the 8th edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding were pictured in a photo layout in Pregnancy & Newborn magazine in the August 2010 issue, picturing the most popular books for new mothers.[23]

I've written many articles for large-circulation magazines (Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Maximising Milk Production for Your New Baby, January, 2008; Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Surgery, November, 2005[24]; New Beginnings Magazine, Lead Article: How to Get Your Milk Supply Off to a Good Start, July-August, 2005 (co-authored with Lisa Marasco)[25]; Mothering Magazine, Lead Article: The Good News About Lactation After Breast Surgery, October-November, 2004[26]; New Beginnings: Making More Milk, April, 2009[27]; New Beginnings Magazine: Ten Nursing Pitfalls, May, 2009[28]; New Beginnings Magazine, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, Excerpt from Chapter Three: Birth!, October, 2009[29]; one of my articles was translated into German in Stillzei Magazine, August 2006; Leaven Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery, August-September, 2002. I am quoted by many others, including Fit Pregnancy.[30]

I am frequently interviewed on radio shows, including recently on Dr. Radio on August 10, 2010. A podcast was recorded of an interview of me for Motherwear’s Breastfeeding Blog[31] and The Vicky and Jen Radio Show.[32]

My publications have led to invitations to lecture all over the world at international conferences (Australia, Austria, Israel, Spain, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada), where only the most prominent leaders in the field are invited, plus hundreds of locations in the US. My visit to Malaysia was announced in their popular Pa & Ma magazine.[33]

I was the Director of Professional Development on the Board of Directors of the International Lactation Consultant Association[34] and the Monetary Investment for Lactation Consultant Certification because of my reputation, publications, and leadership abilities. I'm currently an editor for Clinical Lactation,[35] a peer-reviewed journal, which is no small feat.

I'm definitely not the same person as the Diana West who is the political commentator, but I'm pretty well-known in my own right among mothers and lactation professionals and am quite widely published as my credentials clearly validate.

I hope these citations have helped to clearly establish my credibility. If anything further is required, I will be pleased to provide it. In closing, please let me commend you all very highly on your integrity and critical analysis of the information on Wikipedia. I use it often, but have never seen the development side. I’m deeply impressed and will trust information I read on it even more now. Thank you for your time and devotion to this tremendous worldwide resource. Athena88 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Diana West, IBCLC[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/Feb%202009/1%20ILCA%20Burger%20Surgery.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/BFARinWTE.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=007159857X
  4. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/May%202009/3ILCA%20Twiggs%20MMM.pdf
  5. ^ http://makingmoremilk.com/reviews.shtml
  6. ^ http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/04/20/breastfeeding-mothers-guide-to-making-more-milk
  7. ^ http://pregnancy.about.com/od/breastfeedingproducts/gr/makingmoremilk.htm
  8. ^ www.suite101.com/content/new-research-on-how-to-make-more-breast-milk-a68863
  9. ^ http://blisstree.com/live/book-review-making-more-milk/
  10. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinBAMS.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-1.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-2.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-3.pdf
  14. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestin25Things.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345518446
  16. ^ http://www.llli.org/thewomanlyartofbreastfeeding
  17. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2010/07/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding-8th-edition.html
  18. ^ http://www.breastfeedingmomsunite.com/2010/11/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  19. ^ http://www.strocel.com/the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  20. ^ http://forums.ivillage.com/t5/Fodder-for-Debate-Newsstand/Book-Review-The-Womanly-Art-of-Breastfeeding-New-8th-edition/m-p/116173077
  21. ^ http://www.pregnancy360.com/you/11-nursing-must-haves
  22. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/56afe96d#/56afe96d/8
  23. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DWbooks.bmp
  24. ^ http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/surgery.html
  25. ^ http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug05p142.html
  26. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinMothering.pdf
  27. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/724fa0ad#/724fa0ad/44
  28. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/445c4023#/445c4023/40
  29. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/17ffcb6d#/17ffcb6d/6
  30. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinFitPreg.pdf
  31. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2008/05/motherwear-podc.html
  32. ^ http://vickyandjen.com/podcast_205.html
  33. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinPa&Ma.pdf
  34. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinJHL.pdf
  35. ^ http://media.clinicallactation.org/fall10/ClinicalLactation_FALL.pdf (see page 5)
Reply - Thanks for your input Diana. I'm looking forward to going through those new sources you provided. Just so you're sure, no-one is doubting your credibility as a lactation consultant, just your notability under the Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I am strongly of the belief that you fulfill WP:CREATIVE#1. Thanks and regards, - ManicSpider (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a little surprised this was held over rather than ruled a "Keep" or a "No Consensus." In review, it doesn't seem there is much if any third-party written biographical information out there, BUT it is equally clear that this is a widely published and acknowledged professional in her field. It's a bit of an offbeat pursuit, perhaps, but there does seem to be significant academic and professional work in the field of lactation consultation, including conferences (at which Ms. West has spoken) and journals (in which Ms. West has published). While not a clearcut slam-dunk sort of call, the position of Ms. West as a recognized expert in a legitimate field of academic and scientific endeavor, combined with her extensive publication history (one title being put to 8 editions) seems sufficient to me for an administrator to BOLDLY keep this article — tagged as necessary for improvement. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is a great idea when editing an article. It is often not such a great idea when closing a discussion. As you say there is not a "slam dunk" to keep the article. The hope is that a clearer consensus will develop in the additional week. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Skip Hollandsworth. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skip hollandsworth

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

Delete this article because it cannot be renamed using the move function, due to there already being a Skip Hollandsworth article. There are no links to this article because the surname "hollandsworth" isn't capitalized. The correct article Skip Hollandsworth is the article other pages are linked to, not this orphan. — Ztejasdurango · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was changed to redirect; non admin close. — Timneu22 · talk 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Life is a Zoo

My Life is a Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable show. No sources that indicate notability. No speedy reason for this. — Timneu22 · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bateman

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

Two things brought this AfD into being, one of them more important than the other. First, an editor who claims to be the subject of the article has been trying to gut it and nominate it for deletion, and that drew my attention. Second, though, the only notable position that the subject has had, as far as I can tell, was deputy mayor of a township of 15,000. I can't find anything else of interest, just a few things related to unsuccessful Republican runs for office. I don't see how this subject is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Also, if someone finds an RS saying that he served in the Colorado state legislature, I'll be happy to reconsider the close. T. Canens (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wilkinson (probate judge)

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. [Edited to add: Additions made after creation of the AFD discussion indicate that the subject was a member of the Colorado State Legislature. However, this claim is made in membership records of the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, which is unreliable and fails verification. The State of Colorado does not support this claim.] Cind.amuse 02:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject was elected to the Colorado State Legislature as well as Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. I have added an additional reference, where he is referred to in a book titled "Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc." Italics are mine. John Milito (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the expansions made after this AFD was started — all state legislators pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The claim of the subject as state legislator is actually not supported by the State of Colorado. The sole source of this claim is in a Society membership record, which is neither reliable nor independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I certainly agree that state legislators meet the criteria found at WP:POLITICIAN. That said, the only source that indicates that the subject was a member of the legislature is a Society membership record stating "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," while no other information or sourcing for this statement is made. The State of Colorado does not provide any documentation or historical records to support this claim. The Society membership record is neither reliable nor independent and cannot be used to establish notability. The book on prominent persons in Kansas does not list the subject as a prominent person. This book includes genealogical listings of prominent individuals in the state of Kansas. The subject (Wilkinson) is merely listed in the profile of Robert Scott Dinsmore, M.D., as his father-in-law. In the record, Wilkinson is simply listed as "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans." None of the other references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in an event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources provided are not significant, reliable, or independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think we are being a bit hard on the sources here. The record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," is not a society membership record, it is published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, and the majority of the people noted in that book are not members. I concede the fact that the book on prominent persons in Kansas does not write about Wilkinson as the primary subject, most likely because he is not a native of the state of Kansas. It does tell a bit more that just his name, though: "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans. Judge Wilkinson was one of the early attorneys of Doniphan county, and served as probate judge of that county about twenty years. He was a native of Jacksonville, Ill., and came to Kansas soon after the Civil war. Mrs. Dinsmore was born at Black Hawk, Colo., where her parents had removed in the early sixties." WP:BIO states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" I would think that the author of a book about Kansas taking the time to mention the fact that this man was a founder of an organization 67 years earlier in Illinois points to notability. John Milito (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It is certainly not my desire to frustrate you, but rather to encourage compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Kansas record is merely a genealogical record of Robert Scott Dinsmore, presented by the Kansas State Historical Society. These family histories attempt to list nearly everyone of genealogical, rather than historical prominence. Mention in a genealogical source isn't a measure of notability at all, but solely a measure of usefulness for genealogical research. A genealogical reference does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, since notability is the least of the requirements for being included. Speaking as a professional historian and certified genealogist, I value genealogical records. I am very familiar with the KSHS. That said, genealogical records are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability on Wikipedia. Regarding the record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association? The listing is neither significant, reliable, or verifiable. Can you provide a verifiable source to support the claim that the subject was a member of the state legislature? I've searched and have been unable to verify the claim anywhere. Regards, Cind.amuse 00:19, 30 January 2011 (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) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Founder of one of the earliest debating societies (and it is still going).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can you offer a policy based recommendation? Being a "founder of one of the earliest debating societies" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, notability for the subject has not been met. Thanks, Cind.amuse 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC):[reply]
  • Conditional delete because I was unable to find independent verification or any details about the claim that he served in the Colorado state legislature. If that is confirmed by a state record or other Reliable Source, I will change my opinion to Keep. Merely being one of the seven founders of a notable society does not make the individual separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbury Ridgely Henry

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered five different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others, or in a genealogical record. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:22, 27 January 2011 (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) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article now has a total of 7 sources, two of which are articles with this man as the main subject. John Milito (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline delete In addition to being one of the founders of the literary society (which does not qualify him as notable IMO), he was also one of the founders of the Iowa State Medical Society, and as such he rates a paragraph in an article about the history of medicine in Iowa [43] and in a book "The physicians and surgeons of the United States" [44]. This is not much documentation, but it may be all that can be expected given the time frame. However, I am not convinced that these achievements add up to personal notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah Wright

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list;another includes him in a genealogical record of his wife's family; and the third, as a catalog distributed by the Society, are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is not only a founder of a historically important society, but he was elected county physician of Sangamon County, Illinois. In addition to holding public office, I have added two additional independent biographical sources. John Milito (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. One reference is a paragraph, while others include him on a list among other names or again, in genealogical records. Being elected as county physician does not support notability. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:20, 27 January 2011 (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) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User:John Milito does not present a convincing argument for keeping.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This man's article now draws from 11 sources. He has a passage devoted to his story in "History of Sangamon County, Illinois". John Milito (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. He was one of the seven founders of a society which qualifies as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, but that does not make him individually notable. Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources. He does rate a couple of paragraphs in a book about the history of his county, but IMO that does not add up to notability. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow. Go ahead and delete them all then. Every time I find a rule that supports my position I get three more thrown in my face. I have been to four libraries, and had to ask permission to get into archives. I have slowly built a large pile of sources that NOTE these people's lives. They are NOTED in several published works, several published by universities. But according to three random people these historical figures are not NOTABLE enough, and you are going to delete them, losing my work, losing the network of sources I've built, and making it impossible to improve them any further in order to meet this vague litany of rules. You aren't even going to at least MOVE all of it to the main page? Give me a break. John Milito (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Nehemiah Wright that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability of the Society as a whole does not transfer to every member, early or not. The founding of this Society is surely important to its members but it is was not an event of national consequence so grand that being somewhat associated with it confers automatic notability. If the "immortal seven" are not otherwise notable it may be wise to examine the wisdom of having articles for each of them as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Clinton Ross

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being an early member of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I listed him as "an early member" because the sources differ on his level of involvement in the founding of the society. This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. He did not "found" a society, he is merely "associated with the founding". He was apparently one of the original members [45], but the same reference states very clearly (page 5) that the Phi Alpha Literary Society had seven founders, "the Immortal Seven", and this subject is not one of them. The society may qualify as notable, but its founding is not a "highly significant" event, and he did not "play a large role" in its founding. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davidson Wilson

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:13, 27 January 2011 (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) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. BTW it should be noted that the nominator CindaMuse did her work with commendable care; of the seven founders, she only nominated four for deletion; the other three were left alone because they proved to be notable for other reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu

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

This article has no references, no categories, claims to be some sort of tantric sex thing, and is overall full of what appears to be utter bullshit. I tagged it as db-a7, but apparently it's a religious/philosophical doctrine (which it isn't), and then I prodded it, but apparently it was a lazy prod and notability is easily verified, but isn't. I don't know if this is real or just some pseudo-religious bullshit that's being promoted here. I am fairly certain that in the current state of the article, it should not be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without any references to verify the facts, this can be considered little more than a hoax and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Someone can always recreate an article on the subject at a later date when or if reliable sourcing can be found. --DAJF (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Ay-O. I'm pretty much going to move the entire article over, it may need to be trimmed and/or rewritten to fit well in its new home. Coverage of the internet meme should probably be added if sources can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger box

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

This was tagged as being a possible hoax, but a cursory check online suggests that it may be a legitimate thing after all (a Google test returned 31 million hits, including a Yahoo! Answers question). I think that this implies some notability, so I am opting for an afd rather than moving forward with the cds request. I have no opinion on the article's content, I'm just working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten since I made my original comment. Better now, but still lacks notability and is prime target for vandalism. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It states that it was "Updated Jan 08, 2011 at 01:59AM UTC by Don". The Internet Archive doesn't have this page stored, so I can't verify if there was an change made without the notification being applied. Possible vandalism isn't a valid deletion rationale. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the wikipedia article had been rewritten. You are right about vandalism not being a reason for deletion. Let me say it better: 1. I believe the article should be deleted because even the correct information does not meet notability. 2. If it is kept, the article should be protected due to the fact that the term "fingerbox" is primarily being used as a "lulzcow" currently. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (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) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or possibly merge to Ay-O. The artwork is not a hoax: the Hannah Higgins book cited in the article can be read at Google Books[47] and there are other books about Fluxus that also discuss the Finger Boxes.[48]. This is legit content, although perhaps it would fit just as well at the artist's article. I don't see the evidence in reliable sources for the hoax/meme's notability, but perhaps I am missing something.--Arxiloxos (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this list does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one upfront club hits

List of number-one upfront club hits of 2008 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of number-one upfront club hits of 2009 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one upfront club hits of 2010 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete A less-than-notable music chart whose only reference in wikipedia is a brief mention in the UK Dance Chart article which says that this chart and others like it are "compiled by Music Week chart analyst Alan Jones using data from DJ returns in various UK dance clubs". I could not find any mention of these charts on the official site for the UK Charts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a list that has high influence on the UK BBC chart and BBC1 playlist. You can find mention of the upfront charts on lots of dance artists website. To obtain the complete top 40 data weekly, you can either buy the music week magazine or pay to get access via the music week website. A collection of all the number one so far is an original effort of many from wikipedia. Starbeta (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fereshta Samah

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Found this with an alternate spelling (Freshta Sama) that I am fairly sure is the same person but the mention is much to trivial to approach the criteria of WP:BASIC. Perhaps there is significant coverage in Persian? J04n(talk page) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think I've made some progress on Persian sources. It appears that BBC Persia did a program (or an episode of a series) on her, which makes me think that someone who actually speaks the language will be able to find another source or two, looks like there's probably more (e.g., a passing ref [49] indicating a television appearance, and [50] ), but this would be a lot easier for someone who wasn't working through the vail of automated translation. Clearly I need to learn a few more languages.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:16, 12 January 2011 (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) 01:05, 19 January 2011 (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) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindroute Incentive

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

Declined speedy. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (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) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cobb

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, I suspect that this is a hoax. The article's creator only edit on Wikipedia was the creation of this article 5 years ago. His age does't match well with the text, born in 1963 and a music producer in the 1970s? J04n(talk page) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Nikolayevsky

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

This articled had been reviewed yet and sent to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Valery Nikolayevsky. Then it was immediately recreated by the same User:Jahggy whose contribution makes it quite clear that this user is Mr. Nikolayevsky himself or somebody very close to him. As a sysop of Russian wiki I had deleted the same self-promotional material after detailed investigation of Russian-language sources so that I may insist that this author has absolutely no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (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) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse)

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article provides way too much detail on these fictional tribes than is appropriate for Wikipedia. It really belongs in a role-playing wiki. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 looks like a press release of a corporate partnership. Footnote 2 appears to be a one page reference in a big book. Footnote 3 looks like the same. (Mind you, I don't have these books, so can't be sure). The non-footnoted references are the game maker's own website and a fan webpage. Neither are considered reliable. I see two reliable sources, each with one trivial reference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 20 January 2011 (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) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable spinout article to keep Werewolf: The Apocalypse from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably be trimmed, but while there's not the real-life significance of, say Vampire: the Masquerade's vampire clans, which have influenced the art and literature and even real lives of others, there is probably enough to warrant a MODEST article focusing on the real-life significance of the tribes, and a more brief synopsis. As it stands it needs a full re-write to be in line with the guidelines on writing about fiction. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I understand the concept of a spinoff but most of this is pointless WP:FANCRUFT. It could possibly be trimmed but the users who care about such articles usually aren't the type to trim. Since sources are not particularly significant, independent or reliable, I think it's best left to the White Wolf Wiki.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iroha (band)

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

What little info is sourced is mostly coatracking. One member claims notability with a charted single on the "indie charts" but I can't tell which chart they mean. Overall, the members may have a shred of notability but the band itself doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Indie Chart' noted in the article and references is the 'original' Indie Chart or 'Independent Chart' that was compiled purely from sales of independent records/retailers. The meaning has been usurped over the years but there was only ever one, original 'Indie Chart'. This is discussed in the literature referenced. The fact that all three members were either in notable bands (Final, Rumblefish - all with their own Wiki entry) or are currently still play in a notable band (Jesu - again with their own Wiki entry) makes the band notable as followers of said bands would agree Acrmcr (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (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) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge then delete. The band contains members of other notable bands, but not individually-notable members. The fact that this band exists and that members of those other bands are involved merits a mention in the articles about those bands, but there appears to be no claim to notability at present for Iroha, and most of the content here is about the members' previous bands. Perhaps when the album comes out there will be enough coverage to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock's Backpages

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

Seems to fail WP:WEB. The sources at the bottom, though from irrefutably reliable sources, amount to:

  • A placement in a totally arbitrary "Top 25" list.
  • A broken link.
  • A short article on the site's 5th anniversary.
  • One-sentence mention amongst a list of several other websites.
  • A couple paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly but this is still in the context of several other websites, not about this site exclusively.
  • Incidental coverage from the Guardian that's mostly an interview with the creators.

A further search on Google News turned up no further sourcing than this. So in short, the site appears to fail all three criteria of WP:WEB, to wit:

  1. The web coverage is limited almost entirely to "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", one-sentence mentions and/or material that is not independent (such as the aforementioned interview).
  2. It has not won any sort of award. Getting on some criterion-free "top 25 music websites" lists ≠ notability.
  3. It is not distributed or managed by a more notable website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Paste article and Andy Farquarson's Guardian article both give significant coverage and they're both clearly reliable sources, the others give added weight to claims of encyclopedic merit.--Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) A Library Journal article is partially visible via Google Books ([51]).--Michig (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2011 (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) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Doe

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

He isn't notable enough for his own page. Maybe it should be merged with the Phoenix Jones page to make one over the entire Rain City Superhero Movement. Kag427 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own to have an article for him. There can be an article for the Rain City Superhero Movement though, they getting coverage as a group, and members seen on a television interview together. Dream Focus 08:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't seen one single source or article solely over Buster Doe. He is simply mentioned along with Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't vote delete, since that's automatically assumed since you nominated it. I was stating above that I'm against a merge with Phoenix Jones, since Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own for his own article. Dream Focus 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Buster Doe has gotten absolutely NO coverage on his own. He is rarely referenced in the media, and in those rare occasions it is only as someone in addition to Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (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) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Felts

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

only self-published sources provided for notably: WP:Notability Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (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) 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John David

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

Biography, tagged as unsourced since August 2010, a monography which reads like an agent's blurb. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Kasperavičius

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

I don't see why this article was ever created, or why this person is notable according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Ashershow1talk 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This person was associated with Kevin Mitnick and said to be his accomplice in many crimes. While this was initially substantiated through articles in Wired, The Register and 2600 magazine in addition to a specific mention as Mitnick's "best friend" in the afterward for The Art of Deception, the articles have since all been pulled from online resources by the publishers with no explanation. Since Kasperavicius has never been charged with a crime, these claims are tenuous at best. The only thing he's known for (which can be proven) is as a video game producer for Return Fire and others, and as co-author (with Mitnick) of the CSEPS anti-hacking course taught to banks and government agencies, as an "Ex-hacker" in a 2600 produced documentary, and as a consultant on hacking to a number of Hollywood films and TV series - which probably doesn't merit inclusion here. I'm going to change my answer to comment - I just don't know. Lexlex (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This afd was never placed in the log - so I'm going to do so and relist it. No comment on deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:54, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Thomas

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

seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER, the article as been recreated multiple times be a single contributor who may have a COI. ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: I do agree this article is mostly copied and pasted from another website, due to the large amount of external links, unreliable references to the IMDB and the fact that his filmography is typed in capital letters only. Though, this actor is notable and is the sole reason this article should be kept. I will try to get the article in question this up to wikipedia standards. Mr.Television (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have recently cleaned up the article to Wikipedia's standardMr.Television (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry. If the original entry for James J. Thomas wasn't inputted correctly to Wiki standards, that's my fault (as the interface can be incredibly challenging for some and the guidelines stringent). I do, however, completely appreciate the goal and relevance of said guidelines. However, I cannot imagine whether I put the term 'Filmography' in capital letters or not - should reflect James Thomas's validity. He is a working actor, has starred in a number of films and tv shows and as a friend - and I was only trying to help. As poorly inputted as someone may have found my submission to be, it was only because I didn't know the appropriate format (I still can't, for example, figure out how to add his photo). I also appreciate the work someone did assisting in cleaning the page up btw. I was only trying to help him out and would sincerely appreciate if someone did similar here for me. Sorry about this and I'll read through documentation to try and figure out how to better adhere to the wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbuzz (talk • contribs)

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) 00:53, 26 January 2011 (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) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (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) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television shows

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP who left the following message on the talk page:

There's already a category specifically for programs relating to TV programs shown in the Philippines, so why is there a need for an article about it?

If the reason behind this is to create an article listing programs that has no article in Wikipedia, then I think that's an invalid reason. If there is no article regarding a program, then one must be created for it.

A TV show article with a lengthy details enables others to verify that such program does or might have existed. As such, anyone could add a TV program to this article and clarify just by saying that "it's real" or that they've "seen the program," regardless of the fact that it might be fictitious.

Likewise, I've never heard of the program Alaska Mini-Programa even though it is listed in this list. It doesn't mean that such program did exist but there's also no proof of reference that such show exist. If such program does exist, more details can be added to it creating an article about it.

The listing of shows for certain TV stations are far more accurate and more specific that this listing. Editors of those articles were able to manage to create listing with references and/or create articles pertaining to a TV show. Though, I find it, at times, irksome when editors tend to remove citation requirements that I add whenever there is no verification attached to unlinked programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noting that as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates the existence of a category does not preclude a list, and vice versa. If the information is verifiable (I think it is in this case, there exist TV listings and rankings and magazines that can show WP:V and WP:N), discriminate (also true here, there are definitive and verifiable criterion for inclusion: a TV show, from the Philippines) and Notable (sources will determine that, it's hard to imagine an entire nation has no notable TV shows...), then it's a good list. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.29.47.55. I see no problems with this list that cannot be solved by editing, and the existence of a category is irrelevant. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy upgraded to PROD, PROD tag removed. Wikipedia is not a textbook. The tone and style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If this article is not entirely WP:OR, it is redundant with the pertinent sections of AC power. This almost reads like a translation of a thesis. I am unable to verify the sources given as I don't read any Cryllic. It's an impossible search term or link name. We also have an article Transmission line which is a better place to talk about distributed parameters. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Thatch

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

Not a particularly notable individual. His professional baseball career lasted seven games, his acting career, while existent, does not strike one as "article worthy" and the fact that he was traded for beer, though it is a good factoid, does not in itself merit an article. Alex (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One season in the independent leagues does not make his baseball career notable and his acting career seems to consist of bit parts on television shows.. not notable there either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProBoards

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InvisionFree

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZetaBoards

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johann Gottfried Piefke. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piefke

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

Just an article on a word used in German. No indication of any special importance or interesting history. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Main claim to notability appears to be a false claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Terwilliger

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

May or may not not meet WP:N. Obviously requires cleanup, but that has nothing to do with the deletion itself. Levinge (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep Many championships, certainly notable. I added a few references also. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, you cannot !vote twice. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British Psychological Society. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology

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

Delete or merge with British Psychological Society as "Consiousness and Experimental Psychology" consists mainly of content identifying it as a branch of the BPS, and would be better suited listed in the main article. Levinge (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM

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

No indication that this is a notable website. References are a link farm of content from the site. Stephen 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is recognized and used by Metacritic as a notable site. Conversely, Wikipedia uses Metacritic to determine what reviews are "professional". Therefore it would seem to me, One Thirty BPM is clearly a notable site. The article also lists that it's on Metacritic. So how is there no indication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIN815 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability, the site is now a featured publication on Metacritic. Is that not significant enough? Doesn't that fill criteria #1 of web notability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaloudis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2011 (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) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Metacritic thing, which is pretty significant, the site also draws over 100,000 unique visitors a month and has been sourced by many prominent websites including Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, and NME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.213.242 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would seem to be enough to include One Thirty BPM on Wikipedia. Being listed on Metacritic is generally considered the watermark for what is a recognized and notable critical source, whether that be in print or on the internet. Deleting this wouldn't seem to be doing anything to help the website, nor the music community that relies on websites like this in this time when album sales and concert tickets sales continue to plummet. If the goal of Wikipedia is to make a comprehensive listing of what is notable in our culture, surely listing One Thirty BPM won't hurt that standing and will only help it, especially in the longterm, as the site is fast-growing and at the point to where it shouldn't be ignored. -Philip Cosores 1-26-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.102.30 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is a website that is recognised by many if not all of the independent record labels in the USA and UK. They respect and value their opinions and this is shown by the fact that the website receives promotional material from them for review puposes and for competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.145.205 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2011_January_26&oldid=410223542"