Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 30

< 29 September	1 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Association for Distance Learning

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

Delete. not notable. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not even an assertion of notability, and no evidence can be found easily to prove such. Little more than spam. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No commenter argues that this should be maintained as a separate article, and the minority that mention a merge also acknowledge that there is no sourced content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Worlds Resorts

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

Unreferenced and controversial/opinionated; I see nothing salvageable here, so suggest deletion Chzz ► 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. A cursory exam on google shows some results, but most are travel guides. I'm going neutral because there may be a potential for this to be fixed, but it's up to the authors to come up with something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken this vote because Dennisthe2 has changed his vote to delete (see below). Cunard (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I usually close these "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" but am relisting a second time on the request of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to delete. In two weeks there have been no improvements to this article? A review of Google links, at any rate, don't show anythign new either. Can't find any WP:RS. It gotta go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, article is unreferenced and notability has not been established. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote, to merge with LGBT tourism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RightCowLeftCoast.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article is unreferenced and promotional. The content could be useful for a merge if there were sources, but I have been unable to find any. Having searched through Google News Archive and Google, I was not able to find reliable sources.
Only useful, marginally-notable content that can be sourced should be merged. However, since there are no sources, merging this content to LGBT tourism would not improve that article but detract from its quality. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard. Promotional and unsourced material; unsourceable as far as I can tell. Merging would be a bad idea in those circumstances. Tim Song (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GermanPod101.com

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement from a WP:SPA. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the language seems to be toned down to something not incredibly spammy. But still, non-notable.. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009

(UTC)

Delete Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChineseClass101.com

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement from a WP:SPA. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArabicPod101.com

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement from a WP:SPA. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same spam as LanguageLearner's other deleted articles. — Athaenara ✉ 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrenchPod101.com

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement from a WP:SPA. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EnglishPod101.com

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement from a WP:SPA. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable. Looks more like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie and Zarkov

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

Delete. not notable. page has been created by a sockpuppet (Obuibo Mbstpo) of a banned user (Sarsaparilla). this banned user is known for creating hoax articles. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Uh, I'm not very experienced in the area of drug experiments, but I think the entry in the Sisters of the extreme: women writing on the drug experience and another independent descripition of their methods, together with the sources already cited in the article is sufficient for inclusion. I'm not sure with the reliability of my second source, this is really strange area... Cordyceps2009, elaborate your arguments by providing convincing reasoning, your nomination statement is insufficient. --Vejvančický (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a hoax. I also don't judge the editors. I'm talking about notability of this article. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I won't pretend to have read Notes from Underground but a search of the Project Gutenberg text doesn't turn up the names Gracie or Zarkov, so the article author is probably referring to another (less-notable) document of the same name. Whatever it is doesn't have a page on Wikipedia and no citation is given so it's impossible to tell if these people/characters, who appear to only be notable in the context of that single text, actually even exist. The article therefore fails WP:N and is fundamentally unverifiable. (If the appropriate text surfaces, we should maybe redirect Gracie and Zarkov to the book they appear in rather than giving them a stand-alone article.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are not notable enough to be worth even a mention in Dimethyltryptamine then their own article isn't justified. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So they're not notable, because they're not mentioned in a related Wikipedia article? If I add their names and relevant information to Dimethyltryptamine, will you vote "keep"? It is an unusual attitude. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious single-purpose accounts ignored; article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOTABILITY per consensus in the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Will

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

Non-notable actor. His most illustrious acting job is a 10-minute short film. Also some YouTube clips. The various web sites advertising him are on the same IP subnet — smells an awful lot like a make-myself-famous-using-the-Internet guy. Weregerbil (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree - SMP Studios seems to be his own outfit, at least he is described as their "main actor" and features prominently on their website. I don't see the independent comment required for notability; certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to solidly fail WP:ENTERTAINER. To say nothing of the self-promotion issues. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Steve will is not an actor the youtube, nor on website. those are just refrence points, created by fans and the smp company its self. Steve Will has worked on JC Penney modeling and many TV related jobs. which has a signifigance to the Public. Hey the Refrences tell the truth. Im a Steve Will fan Myself. i have many of His magazines.(talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieCrazydude (talk • contribs) — MovieCrazydude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I Agree, Keep this. Steve Will is awesome, his last Modeling shot was Hot. Steve Will is a real Model and actor. hes right the Refrences are proof. steve does meet.(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123michaelj223 (talk • contribs) — 123michaelj223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Keep this. Steve Will is awesome, his last Modeling shot was Hot. Steve Will is a real Model and actor. hes right the Refrences are proof. steve does meet.(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 321boomiwon44 (talk • contribs) — 321boomiwon44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - the three obvious sock/SPA !votes above were deleted as vandalism; I have restored them as I think all !votes should be visible. The closing admin will know how to value them. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing is asserted in the article that is actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this. Steve Will is a great actor, i scene him on tv last night and he was advertising this search engine. Steve will rocks! (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhlava2847566 (talk • contribs) — Hhlava2847566 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Fails to meet notabilty guidelines. Considering the number of SPAs, suggest Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Edward321. Tim Song (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETED. JBsupreme (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Will

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

Autobiography that lacks notability. He has a page at IMDB but has zero credits listed. Other sources are all promotion. Eeekster (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Michael Sheldon

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

Non-notable blogger lacking references and Ghit and GNEWS to support claims of notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no references, neither can any be found and per WP:V should not be an article on Wikipedia. warrior 4321 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. The "references" are hardly about the subject, but content by the subject, press releases, Alexa data (really?), etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Manny Santiago

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

Autobio of a Puerto Rican author, pastor, and theologian. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- so far we only have his childhood: I cannot tell whewther he is NN or notable from what is there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've sent a note to the editor that created and has been working on this to see if the article is a candidate to be userfied. I wish we would not jump all over new editors with deletion notices, particularly when the article is not a blatant advertisement. There was zero effort to use WP:BEFORE such as querying the person on their, or the article's, talk page about what makes the person notable and then asking about available references. Ideally they decide for themselves that the subject is not notable. Newbies need guidance and not doors slammed in their faces. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a pastor does not confer notability. Nothing indicates that this article satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Jade Ewen album)

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

Another for the WP:HAMMER. No title, no track-list, no release date, no sources, nothing. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Article even says the artist has "has abandoned work" on the album "for a while." JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to have an article about something if we don't even know what to call the article yet. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would use the usual "no tracklisting, release date" etc stuff. But it's possible that it's been abandoned now that she's a Sugababe. If it does get released, then bring it back then. Until then, get rid of it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going off of WP:HAMMER here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No title. Wait for the moment when a title for album to be released to recreate article. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has been moved to Punching Out, this album title has never been confirmed - the only reliable source mentioning it that I've seen is Digital Spy where it says it's not confirmed. Jade Ewen has now joined the Sugababes and it seems unlikely that this album will ever be released, but if it does then only recreate it once it's confirmed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Flipside

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBSL

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

An outsourced services company with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made extensive searches for independent coverage of this company, using several different search facilities. I have found Mortgage Broking Services Limited, Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka, Mark Broadhead Sound & Light, MBSL Group Inc of Tampa Florida, MBSL - Sound & Light Solutions, Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, multiple-bubble sono- luminescence, Minimum Basic Setback Line, Massachusetts Biotechnology Softball League, etc etc, but no sign of this company. Clearly non-notable. Created by an SPA which has no edits except to this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there seem to be 21800 Google hits for "mcnally business services" limited, although there are only 851 if you put quotes around the whole thing. And there are 28200 Google hits for "multi-bubble sonoluminescence," but not sure if "MBSL" is an accepted abbreviation. Likewise, there are about 202 hits for "minimum basic setback line." And there are a whopping 293000 hits for "Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor" (449 in Google Scholar). Thus, you might want to consider disambiguation as an alternative to deleting the page. Bwrs (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as this article not only lacks any evidence of notability, but also lacks significant coverage per WP:CSD#A7. Instead, coverage is limited to spammy promotion of its directors and its business. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 17 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad para el Estudio del Andaluz

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

Delete - I have attempted to find reliable sources backing a claim of notability, but have been unable to do so. The references currently on the page refer to the organization's own website or to non-reliable user generated content forums. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - They are a pressure group making a concerted effort - have even got articles about them in publications like 20 minutos, see here. But it's weak.--Tris2000 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa

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

Delete - I attempted to find reliable sources mentioning this organization to establish notability and could find none. If some can be provided I would be happy to remove my nomination. But I just don't see them out there right now. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to the Andalusian one also AfD'd today, I think that these guys are much more established. They even publish their own magazine. They've also been going for many years, so not a new outfit. See this from 2005. They are also quoted in respected broadsheet El Periódico here last year. In fact, if you do a Google Search for their name in Castilian spelling ("Sociedad de Lingüística Aragonesa"), you'll find 5400 ghits--Tris2000 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aragonese is being considered for official status and the question of governing body will involve this Sociedad. It's also the proponent of one of the current orthographies, which alone makes it notable. For an underfunded minority language, you can't expect quite the same range of sources and reference materials in any case. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis guidance package

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

A prod tag was removed with no discernable improvement to the article. There is no evidence to suggest that this term is used by anyone except the company to which the article is/was linked; this is thinly-disguised advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this deserves to go anywhere, its within Dissertation, where attempts to add it by same editor(s) have been rebuffed as spam. Google news and google books have no hits for "Thesis guidance package"--Milowent (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only part of an elaborate spam-scheme on Dissertation to promote a website that sells these things. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I don't see much evidence of spam, but it is clearly something along the lines of a definition of what this is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this package. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems that it was created solely as a platform for a spam link. It doesn't have any notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't need to go anywhere except out. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The article's TALK page is particularly amusing. Seems the creator tries to preempt deletion with a helpful recommendation by a concerned editor, written in the same poor english as the article itself... --Whoosit (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an author's request to delete the article. JamieS93 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Schumann

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

Only known for one event Nsaa (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy delete G7, author requests deletion. I'm sure that every time she did it with the party chairman was a special event, but being a politician's girlfriend is not particularly notable. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator also created this article six days prior? Seems a bit futile. --Milowent (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. After some discussion with others (off wiki) I see that this article maybe isn't wort keeping. Nsaa (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. But is she hot? --Milowent (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are horrible, editor Milowent :) Turqoise127 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Gulipardo

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

Fails WP:Athlete as baseball player who apparently never played above independent leagues or possibly a low level farm club. References section provides no direct link to subject to otherwise establish nobility, and google turns up nothing relevant. Majorclanger (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Majorclanger (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts that he played professionally, but none of the sources indicate this. Unverifiable, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sourced, he didn't play at the highest level of pro competition. Pitcher Bobby Chouinard was the first (and so far, only) native of the Philippines to play in the major leagues, for Oakland, Milwaukee, Arizona and Colorado between 1996 and 2001. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search didn't find evidence of a professional baseball player by this name. His name doesn't appear in the baseball-reference.com minor league database, and they cover the independent Prairie League and Western League. This strongly suggests that the article may be a hoax; regardless of whether or not its a hoax, it fails the notability criteria and should be deleted. BRMo (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –xeno^talk 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (US) models

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

Unreferenced & unencyclopedic list mostly consisting of redirects-to-self. –xeno^talk 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I have nominated the 84 redirects to this article for deletion as well, interested parties may wish to see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 30#A.J. Almasi and 83 other redirects from apparently non-notable models. –xeno^talk 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps with a small rewrite it would be fine. I find the information interesting and certainly notable. If the article was rewritten and better organized it would be just fine. I put the information in chronological order and it makes the article a little more readable —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could help me understand why this information (in such fine detail) is notable? –xeno^talk 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To start it lists people who are notable enough to have their own articles (Most of them). These models are reoccurring talent on the show, not just nameless extras. I agree with you that the article doesn't have enough references but that doesn't stop you from putting in some. Using a simple google search I was able to find oodles of information on these women. The models were common discussion on the TV show if you've ever watched it. This television program has run for more than one season, I would say any details to it are notable. There are certainly more useless lists on Wikipedia. I think it should be kept. I wouldn't even suggest a merge with Deal or No Deal main article because there is enough information in this article to merit its existence. I'm only one opinion, thats what these discussions are for, I'll allow others to weigh in on the topic. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the ones with articles deserve a mention in the prose of Deal or No Deal (US), but this list is far too detailed. I'm not sure why it is important that Model X held case 26 this week but case 13 the next. This is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its excessive to complain that the article has "too much" information. Clean up the article I agree, add more references I agree, deleting it isn't necessary. I will add reference and clean up tags to it. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it harm wikipedia to have this information listed, despite it being long? --Milowent (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOHARM. It doesn't necessarily harm Wikipedia, but it doesn't particularly reflect well either to have a list of this nature. It is excessive fancruft. –xeno^talk 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ITSCRUFT.B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM specifically says that harmless information shouldn't be kept if its unreliable or has no citation, yes this article has little citation but the subject matter has plenty of info surrounding it only no one has yet taken the time to source the topic. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been presented with an argument to convince me that this information is in any way encyclopedic. It belongs on a fansite. –xeno^talk 18:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for me and the rest of the Wikipedia community I don't have to convince you. You posted this up for an AFD discussion, so far the consensus agrees with me. Again, I'm not trying to defend the article, I agree its in need of repair but this discussion isn't about repair its about notability and a number of other users agree with me that the article has worth. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and WP:SOFIXIT are not valid arguments for either keeping or deleting an argument, and the amount of effort in delinking is actually less than the amount of effort to create the Wikilinks in the first place. Being in need of cleanup is an insufficient grounds for deletion; so is a lack of citations. Clearly there is an abundance of third-party coverage in reliable sources independent of the collective. B.Wind (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not notable in the Wikipedia sense as far as I can tell. The article is mostly just a list of people, most of whom are not notable (the blue links are deceptive, almost all of them are redirects back here). I doubt this article could be reconstructed from reliable secondary sources. Right now it's completely unsourced. Rees11 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Being a model on the show is a "big deal." This is demonstrated from the fact, that there are lots of news stories that talk about so-and-so and say something like "the New or No Deal model" - if it wasn't a big deal, they would say "the model" instead of specifying the show. Secondly, some very rough searching shows that a fair number are notable, although it is true few have articles at this time. Finally, and most importantly, the models as a group have received significant RS coverage as shown by this search. The problems with the article (excessive detail, insufficient prose) can be solved via normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Show itself, and the use of models, is notable. Having this compilation of info as a separate article is logical.--Milowent (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable as Barker's Beauties. Some of them are, in fact, notable independently of the show. In addition, the collective "Deal or No Deal Models" has also been used in advertisements of off-television appearances. Nomination is essentially that of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - in fact, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC points to the same essay. Circular wikilinks can be removed at zero cost to the article and Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do keep it, I'd like to see the self-redirects fixed. That's how I got pulled into this discussion. It would be tedious to do manually, what do you suggest? Rees11 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The self-redirects will be fixed if they are deleted in the RfD I've just filed. –xeno^talk 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of those things people inexplicably want to look up. The kind of question that drove library reference desk volunteers crazy. And a few of them do have enough individual coverage to be notable, though not very many. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Deal or No Deal" is an extremely popular show BECAUSE of the Models - not it's content. People who seek information about "Deal or No Deal" are almost always seeking information about the Models - not about how the game is played. Glenn Francis (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Rees11 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia article traffic statistics shows this article is a winner - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Thaddeus. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above, including my comment above. B.Wind (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discount Jeanne Boleyn's arguments in the vein of "I am seeking to remedy [the lack of coverage of such women in scholarship] by pushing for fuller coverage of the biographies of women such as Alianore", because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advancing an agenda. Instead, WP:DGFA instructs me to weigh the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, such as WP:BIO. Jeanne Boleyn, as well as the other people expressing "keep" opinions, do not address the coverage requirements of that guideline, or the article's failure to meet them. Accordingly, I have to give these opinions less weight. (As a personal aside: If there is anything of substance to say about the number or social position of suo jure heiresses in medieval England, reliable scholarly sources will have done so, and their research can be covered in an appropriate general article about the topic, which might make Jeanne Boleyn's point better than creating genealogies of random aristocrats that few will ever read.) Sandstein 19:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alianore de Lovayne

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

Individual lacks the slightest claim to notability: has not been the subject of any published study, receiving only incidental notice in a genealogical context. The only WP:RS cited is account of husband's family which names her only to identify to whom the husband, himself non-notable, married. No titles, no nothing. Page is almost entirely a litany of dates of vital events and a listing of all of the people to whom she is related, with dates for them too, but notability is neither inherited nor derived from descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the sake of full disclosure, the page creator and I had disagreed over the content of this page. However, this AfD is not being made out of bad faith, nor is it being proposed as a way to address content. I took a closer look at it and realized that there is no there there. She was born, she married, she died, she was buried. She had children and descendants, and she was the conduit by which the manor of Little Easton (just another English village) passed from her own family (non-notable) to that of her husband (non-notable) and descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the article on Alianore de Lovayne as she had been an heiress in her own right, which was most unusual for a female in the 14th century. I am hoping to create more articles on such heiresses to highlight the fact that medieval women were not just nameless babymakers, or suffering saints burnt at the stake; but people of property who as such wielded tremendous power over the lives of the tenants who lived on their estates. Alianore de Lovayne may not be known to many editors, but I had hoped to acquaint readers of Wikipedia to the fact that a woman such as Alianore, herself the suo jure owner of many rich manors, and part of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy which was an exclusive circle of powerful, intermarried families, would have exerted much control over the destinies of many individuals. It is imperative that Wikipedia should not remain a bastion of male-dominated historical personages with the females relegated to mere footnote status. I realise after reading some of your contributions, Agricolae, that this AfD is not being made out of bad faith, and is not personal, albeit we had disagreed over the content as you have stated. I maintain my stance that medieval heiresses such as Alianore de Lovayne need to have their own articles so that people may know more about the lives of such women, even if they weren't queens, princesses or tragic saints tied to their wheels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an heiress in one's own right was not at all uncommon. It happened just about every time a landowner died without a male heir, and the English Pipe Rolls, Close Rolls and Inquisitiones Post Mortem are full of examples. I could give you estates with six or seven heiresses. It also happened all across the social spectrum, from kings to dirt-farmer tenants. Likewise, the very act of controlling the lives of others is insufficient, or every officer, commissioned and non-com, in every military in the world would also 'need' a page. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to push an agenda, however strongly one feels about it, even if in another context it may seem laudable, such as to educate the less well informed or to retroactively correct an unfortunate historical social inequity. Setting these 'greater goals' aside, Alianore would be perfectly equivalent to her father, who also was an heir and also had control over people, and also is non-notable and I would also be proposing the deletion of his page if one existed. I am sure there are those who would disagree, I don't think page-worthiness should be inherent in any social class (even though it is almost inevitable in some). One merits (not needs to have) a page only when one is notable, full stop. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By no means was Alianore the only example of a suo jure heiress; indeed there were quite a few. Up until recent times, however, and you will agree with me here, Agricolae, is that history books and especially encyclopedias never bothered to mention these women; they were lucky to receive a footnote! I am seeking to remedy that by pushing for fuller coverage of the biographies of women such as Alianore who lived in the Middle Ages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not the place for advocacy. It is not a place to seek a remedy. Anyhow, this is not a case where a man is getting coverage and an equivalent woman is not. Neither Alianore nor her father merit pages. To give special preference to a person due simply to chromosome makeup is exactly the kind of gender-bias you claim to be fighting. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I confess I was once blind to the realities of patriarchy and oppression, but that changed when I discoved the story of Alianore de Lovayne. The seemingly commonplace events of her life are notable by their very non-notability. Ironically, were it not for this AfD, I would indeed not know about the life of this previously-unsung heroine. Ok, that was satire - but let's allow this article to live. I don't think we are going to be buried under an avalanche of obscure-heiress-cruft on the basis of the precedent. Editors who contribute well-researched factual content like this article should be given some lattitude, even if they are motivated by personal POV, so long as that POV doesn't bias the articles. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability asserted in the article is that of some of her descendants, and such notability does not transfer to the article's subject. Fails WP:N for lack of substantive secondary treaments of the woman herself. Deor (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I admit I haven't yet checked out the sources, but on first glance there doesn't seem to be much of a claim of notability here. Notability is not 'inherited' from notable descendants. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for 'righting historical wrongs' like the poor coverage of women in the Middle Ages; that may be the case, but we have to rely on secondary sources, and if they don't cover someone in any detail, then neither can we. Robofish (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are judging Alianore by 21st standards of notability. In the 14th century a wealthy heiress would have been notable, just as Paris Hilton is notable today, solely on the basis of her inherited wealth. In 200 years time, many people may not even recognise her name. I also feel that Wikipedia needs to improve the coverage of medieval women, which is not the same thing as attempting to right a historical wrong.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 14th century heiress of a single manor would not have been notable even then, any more than a male holder would have been notable just for having inherited. It doesn't matter though. Wikipedia is a 21st century encyclopedia, and uses a very simple criterion for determining noteworthiness. What coverage has the subject received in secondary sources? Is it more than just a passing reference? The answer is clearly no. None of the cited references say anything substantive about her. She is simply someone's wife, someone's daughter, and someone's mother, and none of them have more than two sentences about her. That, by the standards of Wikipedia, is not notable. As to what Wikipedia 'needs to improve' attempting to set right a current wrong is no better than a historical one, particularly if the 'improvement' flies in the face of Wikipedia's own standard for inclusion. Agricolae (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is not the inheritor of single manor. Read the article: she is the inheritor of a major group of estates, and the progenitor of an important historical family. Someone in this position would be notable today. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources: that is just the editor's hyperbole. 'Major group of estates' appears nowhere. She was a minor local landholder, but the article has exaggerated her importance. As to being progenitor of an important family, every important family has thousands of ancestors, and the number doubles every generation. They aren't all notable. Someone in this position would be no more notable today. (Who today owns Little Easton?) More importantly, this woman ISN'T notable today, as judged by her lack of coverage in secondary sources. Agricolae (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She inherited many properties in Essex and Suffolk, these are facts not my hyperbole. An heiress of property and wealth would have been notable in the insular world of the 14th century English aristocracy , as is ascertained by the number of sources that I have listed at the bottom of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is just your own POV. The 14th century English gentry was a lot larger and more diverse class than you give credit, and most of your sources (Cawley, Tompsett, thePeerage, Burkes) simply demonstrate that she was born and died, she had parents and children and a husband. I see that the Manning House site says she and her husband united two 'great estates', but someone's personal web page is hardly what would be called a reliable source, particularly when it is the site of an adoptee trying to find glory in her newly discovered ancestry. Prone to exaggeration, such sites represent a somewhat different POV than what one might see is a scholarly study. It definitely does not fit with the WP:RS standard. I doubt her holdings were in the top 200 in terms of size. I suspect your average Pennsylvania dairy farmer would have more acreage than she owned. An heiress of such small property and wealth was only one of many, and not notable, then or now. Show me a reliable source that calls her a major heiress. All I see here is someone who is said to deserve a page because of the social class to which she belonged and the fact that her father had no sons. It really should take more than that, given that there were a hundred thousand equivalent minor landholders all across Europe, none of whom receive any scholarly coverage unless they did something particularly noteworthy, such as rise in rebellion or become the mistress of a king. It is that scholarly coverage that defines notability, not an editors presumptions about what someone in the 14th century would have taken note of. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marvel that you would compare a 14th century heiress to a modern day Pennsylvania dairy farmer. The two are not comparable at all. In the 14th century the owner of estates meant power and influence that a dairy farmer from Pennslvania just does not command. The English gentry and indeed nobility was a considerably smaller, and much intermarried class, compared to the French or Spanish. One has to realise the population in England was much smaller with an aristocracy mainly descended from the Norman knights brought over by William I, although in point of fact, the Lovaynes originated in Louvain. I repeat, a female suo jure landowner with tenant farmers and serfs under her control would have been notable in the 14th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marvel that you think the Spanish nobility was larger and less intermarried than the English, given that they mostly came from a very small group of repoblador families that then repeatedly intermarried. All of these claims about the English nobility are just based on your personal say-so and POV, just like the supposed claim of notability of this insignificant member of the gentry, when no published source seems to care that she did anything but produce progeny. Agricolae (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC) While we are at it. let me point out one more thing. She did not exercise the power you claim for her - her guardian would have exercised it before her marriage, and then her husband exercised it jure uxoris after. That was the way it worked. So much for that claim to notability. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not always follow that men exercised jure uxoris control over their wives property, besides women almost always managed their husband's estates and defended the castles or manors while they were away at war (which they were a large part of the time during the turbulent Middle Ages). There is the more recent 17th century example of Mary Bankes who defended Corfe Castle for three years against the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. History is full of examples of female regents and de facto rulers, I cannot believe you would downgrade the role of females the way you just did. As for Spain, the kingdoms of Aragon, Castile and Leon were not even united until the 15th century, so you really cannot say that their gentry and nobility were comprised of just a few families. The estates of minors, irregardless of sex, were always placed under the control of a guardian, so why make an example of Alianore?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I strongly urge the closing administrator to review the arguments put forward by both sides. I believe it is clear that notability has not been established and while it is a little sad to see some sourced information that one editor has put effort into compiling get lost, it is necessary. I can see no way in which this person is more notable than any significant landowner or member of a distinct social class. Keeping this article just because Alianore is a woman would be patronising. Srnec (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have not reviewed the possibility that some or even all of the material currently in the article may have a place somewhere else in the project. It is possible and any that does could be merged there without loss. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazmend Çimili

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

Although Apolonia is professional, my concern is that these two players haven't made a senior appearance for the club.

Also including:

Andrea Veliu Spiderone 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - they both fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both No, they don't fail WP:ATHLETE in any way whatsoever. Like it or not, WP:ATHLETE gives a free pass to "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", and they play for a team in the highest division of the Albanian Superliga. Doesn't matter that you're playing at the highest level in little Albania rather than a large nation; under the rule, you get the same consideration as a player in the MSL. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Albanian Superliga isn't fully professional Spiderone 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford. It doesn't matter if they are at Manchester United or Bishop Auckland, if they haven't played a game they aren't notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, [[1]], Cimili has played one game. People would differ over whether someone who makes the roster meets the guideline or not. Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veliu hasn't played according to that source. I don't think it matters much though since the league isn't fully professional. Spiderone 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have all the information about the Albanian Superliga, but the information that I have is that its champions and runners-up compete with the other clubs in the UEFA tournaments, which is "fully professional" enough as far as I'm concerned. I reckon that our pros get paid better than their pros, but short of a source that shows that the First Division is a bunch of weekend warriors, but I can't see having different standards for different European nations. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clubs from all of Europe's leagues can play in UEFA competitions. Does that mean they are all exceptions to the rule? Spiderone 06:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know more about soccer football than I, so I'll pose two questions for you. #1 Is the first division of the "Superliga" the top level of competition within Albania? If it's secondary to another Albanian league, then I stand corrected. #2 I recognize that UEFA sponsors lots of tournaments, but don't they have a competition that's limited to the teams at the top of each nation's premier league? I remember that there used to be something called the "Cup Winners Cup", and another one where the teams with the best records in each nation's major league met each other. Is there really some type of free-for-all where major champions square off against minor teams? Over here, that would be like the Atlanta Braves meeting up with the Elkhart Rotary Club in the playoffs, so that would be odd, but maybe things are different than I would expect. Maybe a third question would be, can you explain what you mean regarding the Superliga not being "fully professional"? Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major teams do quite often play minor teams in the qualifying rounds. Winning the Albanian Superliga doesn't guarantee a place in European competition; you still need to qualify. The Superliga isn't fully professional because some people are part-time and there is no evidence that the league is professional anywhere on the internet. Spiderone 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them. Whether or not the team is even pro is irrelevant for these. To "compete" you have to play. The apparently watch from the bench. Lara 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Spiderone, Winning the Albanian Superliga does get you a place in European competition even if that is a qualifying round, so your statement above of guarantee is kind of incorrect. However players of Albanian teams that get passed qualifing rounds and play in the main stay UEFA competitions do qualify under WP:ATHLETE for their own articles but those two haven't so they should both be delete. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svetla Lubova

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass the current criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched and can confirm that there does not seem to be significant independent coverage, and no evidence of satisfying WP:PORNBIO.
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Roberts (model)

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched and can confirm that there does not seem to be significant independent coverage. Needless to say there are sites where one can download pictures of her, etc etc, but they are not independent. I found no evidence for satisfying any of the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article includes no genuine claims of notability or any indication that subject meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already deleted by: Malo (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Turkish gangs in melbourne" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) StarM 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish gangs in melbourne

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

This is either an attack on real people with no sources or a hoax. A very similar article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish mafia. Grahame (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blanked some sections which referred to specific individuals, per WP:BLP. Haven't searched for sources so no opinion on the topic's notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unverified. I spent a few hours last night trying to verify any of the claims, particularly the supposed death of three police officers and the gaoling of a member for 25 years. Not a sausage. The article content is disturbing and could be perceived as inciting/glorifying gang and ethnic violence and violence towards police. Is a contested deletion really enough to prevent this article's immediate deletion? florrie 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Casavis

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

Non-notable candidate for local office. Lacks GNews and GHITS of substance to support article. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Can't find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN David Casavis has earned a place on the ballot by virtue of collecting thousands of signatures from NYC voters. So he is a valid candidate by virtue of New York Election Law. Removing this article because Casavis isn't sufficiently covered by mainstream media or because someone finds him "non-notable" is equivalent to supporting his opponent and is a violation of campaign finance laws that could risk Wikipedia's 501c status. A statement that he is non-notable is subjective. Based on his ballot status he is note-worthy. Any discussion of the 2009 race for Manhattan Borough President is incomplete and inaccurate without reference to Casavis. --ImmoveableGroove (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)— ImmoveableGroove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikpedia is not the place for political campaigns to take place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles on notable subjects. You are correct that notability is subjective and the English Wikipedia has detailed what makes someone notable. Notability on Wikipedia starts off with the Wikipedia:Notability guideline that is the overarching guideline for all articles. This is then refined for people, Wikipedia:Notability (people). In that guideline there is even a specific section about politicians, WP:POLITICIAN. None of the reasons you say he is notable are included in any of these guidelines. For the most part notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned comes down to one thing, significant coverage in reliable sources. I have looked and I can not find significant coverage of Casavis in reliable sources. If you are able to find some, let me know and I will reevaluate my opinion based on the new information. I don't think Wikipedia's 501c status is threatened because someone who does not meet the long established notability guidelines that all articles are subject to, is not included. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – GB fan, well put and needless to say I agree with you. I am always amazed at the number of people that think that one or another Wikipedia guideline amounts to something that is actionable in the legal system. I am even more amazed at the misinterpretation of established laws by laypersons. ImmoveableGroove I suggest you read The Hoover Institution-Campaign Finance. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:No legal threats, your comment treads a bit too close to a violation of that policy. Let us remember that lack is notability is the issue at hand. I will repeat, notability needs to be established to survive this AfD. ttonyb (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN From what I can tell, the campaign has only begun, but the candidate in question is cited in many news sources. Just Googling brings up a couple of pages. Perhaps he is not a household word over in GB, but here in NYC he is an established candidate with a major party.Sallieparker (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – True there are a few pages of hits; however, as stated in the nomination, the hits lack substance. They are short references and entries in blogs. He may be an established candidate in NYC, but it appears he is lacking the notability to support an article. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'RETAIN'" This article should be retained and linked to the existing wikipedia article about the office of the borough president. The borough president wikipedia entry details how the position has had its significant powers eroded over time. However, the entry fails to mention that there is an ongoing controversy about whether the office should exist at all. This case has been made by Mr. Casavis, by editorial writers of the New York Daily News and New York Post, and, previously, by Barry Popik. This point of view is unusual enough to deserve attention and Mr. Casavis merits an entry himself and a link to a proposed new controversy section of the borough president article along with Barry Popik (already the subject of a wikipedia entry), for their respective roles in the continuing debate.Konakid04 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — Konakid04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – The existence of another article (i.e., Barry Popik) is not a justification for existence of this article. Each article must stand on its own merit and satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.

Retain a search on Gotham Gazette alone returns 10 articles that reference Casavis. If you don't think Gotham Gazette is a major publication then you aren't familiar with politics and government in New York. A web search returns 1800 articles and while of course many are things like Facebook and minor media, the first page alone shows media such as New York Press, NBCNewYork.com and Politickerny.com. Should Wikipedia have thorough coverage of politics where thoughtful people can get a complete picture or should it present only a superficial picture that one could get from a soundbite on the 6:00 news? ImmoveableGroove (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — ImmoveableGroove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – A search on ("David Casavis" "Gotham Gazette") only shows one article and a Google web search of ("David Casavis") only show 252. (see [2]) As you indicated the majority of articles are "things like Facebook and minor media". In addition, the other articles do not amount to significant coverage. If you can provide specific evidence the article meets the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN it will be retained. ttonyb (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete One thing he is certainly not, and that is a noted scholar. He doesn't have a doctorate. He has no academic publications. He's taught a course as an adjunct at a few colleges. He has written a few articles, and a large number of book reviews. As for politics: according to the article, he ran for a minor municipal office because nobody else in his party was willing, and he lost badly. He's running for another municipal office under about the same conditions. If by any miracle he wins, he might become notable. But I notice the people who want to "retain" thearticle are saying, imo correctly, that the office he is running for isn't even very important This is a very highly promotional article, very close to a G11, and even taking the claims at their face value, he isn't notable. Wikipedia is not the place for political advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VESK

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

No third-party sources actually refer to VESK; the footnotes lead to general articles on desktop virtualisation that do not mention VESK by name. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I didn't want to make it look like i was trying to advertise VESK to readers, which would get the article marked for deletion. I just wanted to back up my claims with generic proof Appipark (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this can be read that you are indeed trying to advertise VESK but just don't want it to look that way. Are you a neutral editor with regards to VESK? UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the product they offer and happened to find their wiki page. Thought i'd add more information on what i've read. Appipark (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any refs in The Times, NY Times, WSJ, or any leading computer review publication. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any references to what?Appipark (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources to show that the company is notable. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking difficult to find anything, i know they're a new-ish company. If i can find something from a blog or e-magazine would that be acceptable for the time being? At least until they get published in something bigger and someone can add that. Appipark (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines. Blogs are not reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by an e-magazine. It's not an issue about size. If they have a truly novel product they will probably have some type of coverage. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Lachaud

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

Highly promotional text regarding an individual about whom multiple independent sources are glaringly lacking. Fails WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gees, I don't know... I mean, seeing the picture there it almost seems like a prank or joke but I need to remind myself not to judge based on that... Let's see, I can't find much either, but shall we try and be fair and get a French speaker in on this? Turqoise127 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speak French, and judge it likely that this person exists, if perhaps only as a pseudonym of somebody else, even though the article reads like a parody of a biography of a certain kind of European intellectual. There are books published under that name, e.g. [3]. But the article is mainly an exercise in self-promotion, and neither it nor a Google search reveals any substantial coverage of the person, as opposed to works by him. This makes him fail WP:BIO. Sandstein 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanzhar Sultanov

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

Contested PROD. COI concerns; sourcing comes from mostly non-notable sites (one article purported to be from Time, though I can't read it to verify, and it doesn't look like Time). Note that the bluelink for his film leads to the story, not the subject's film. GlassCobra 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the Time magazine in question and although my cyrillic skills are limited, I will say that it is a Kazakhstanian internet website called "Time", that I am sure of. Now, I also vouch it has nothing to do with the US Time magazine. What kind of a website exactly it is and how reliable of a source it is remains to be discovered... Turqoise127 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you very much for your aid. The article does state that the source in question comes from "Time Magazine," so whether it's simply a similarly named publication, or some other possibility, remains up in the air. GlassCobra 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and start it over. Every single significant edit to this article has been by the promotion company for Mr. Sultanov's movie (see User talk:Reverson Entertainment.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website www.time.kz is the Internet copy of the daily national broadsheet newspaper in Kazakhstan, called "Vremya". The paper produces 3,000,000 copies every publication. The paper has sections devoted to Politics, Finance, and Entertainment. This article was written by Galina Vibornova, who was recently awarded the President's highest honour for contributions to Media.

The article details a short biography of Mr. Sultanov and his recent premier of [Makes The Whole World Kin], starring [Paul Calderon]. The article also announces Mr. Sultanov's upcoming feature film (re: The Story), which has been pre-sold for distribution in Kazakhstan with the title "Nelzya Umeret Darom". The film's cast includes Michael Clarke Duncan and Kelly Hu, with a lead role offered to Harvey Keitel (as written in the article). It also seems that the company's website has become a source of information. The [Facebook] page for this company quotes 176 fans. His networks include [Upper Canada College]. When searched "Sanzhar Sultanov" in google, Upper Canada College web article confirms his education there, and at [Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute]. This information also appears to have made its way to his IMDb page biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.232.36 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- are you "Reverson Entertainment" again? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is Sanzhar's old theatre director from Toronto Youth Theatre. He performed with us in 2005, in Rocky Horror Show. The information that I wrote above is drawn directly from the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.39.214 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JPGORDON, I wrote the above comment, and you made it look like it was written by user:173.34.39.214 I decided to contribute to this discussion as an independent viewer by researching the credibility of the "www.time.kz" source, which for some reason was not fully researched by any Wikipedia administrators. After I found out all the information on the well respected newspaper, the first thing you say is "Are you Reverson Entertainment?" You then proceeded to changed my IP address to make it seem like I was someone else. I believe, that a wikipedia administrator should concern him/herself with proving the credibility of an article. However, instead of researching the sources for an article, which I ended up doing for you, you seem to be more concerned with disproving the credibility of the article. Please explain these personal attacks.

Um, the comment was written by User:173.34.39.214, and then you deleted it and re-entered it under this IP. Not sure why you wanted to pretend otherwise, but please don't lie and then accuse others of misbehavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not yet made a notable film. The one film he did make is a 20 min short, a/c IMDb, which is reliable for something like that. The COI of some of the people above is self-declared. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iheanacho Joe Senssini

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

PROD removed so that additional users can attempt to verify claims presented in article. Article is about an amateur footballer who doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. The article claims that he was the top player in the CAF Champions League at age 18, which if true would mean the article passes WP:ATHLETE, but that is an apparent hoax and is unverifiable at best. Jogurney (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- All I can find are mentions on forums. Doesn't seem to be notable. Spiderone 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where's the evidence that this guy is notable? Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pietrucha

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

Non-notable film director. Google searches turn up only his own site and social network listings and notice on IMDB and similar sites for a single credited role as an "Imperial Guard" in Children of Dune. Google news search shows only listings of people with the same name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this director. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the criteria for notability.--Darwinek (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Weed-Eater, The Movie

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

Contested PROD of film in scriptwriting stage, reason was: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF: Future films are generally not notable until production is well under way. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I say delete (and possibly userfy) without prejudice to remaking the article once principal photography begins for the film, as per the future-film guideline. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal-ballery of a non-notable film. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since principal photography has not started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page. This page is a work in progress, we are uploading posters and further information as it comes to me from the creator himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consasia (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why I suggest moving the page to user space, to be returned to article space if & when principal photography starts. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all due to WP:ATHLETE failure - no problem with bundling these at all. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hun-Jong

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

These all fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as the Korea National League is only semi-pro. Contested PRODs.

Spiderone 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they look to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all articles are about athletes that play in a lower-tier semi-pro league. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources of any of these (though my lack of Korean language skills is surely a limiting factor). Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to WP:ATHLETE, an athlete is notable if they play at the fully professional OR the highest ameteur level; the football leagues in question are semi-pro, so if we treat that as amateur, then they'd be playing in the highest Korean amateur football leagues; if they're not amateur, then they play at the pro level, passing WP:ATHLETE either way.

Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Biographies, and that project page in general, for discussion about being careful that people notable in non-English-speaking countries don't fall below our 'notability-radar' --Arkelweis (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure the "highest amateur" rule only applies if there is no professional alternative. These players could turn professional if they wanted to. Spiderone 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean, "if they could find anyone that would pay them to", rather than, "if they wanted to". I'm sure that would want to play in a fully professional league if they could get the opportunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There's no inherent notability in semi-pro athletes of any sort, although they can attempt to prove notability the hard way. WP:ATHLETE was rewritten to close out the idea that "highest amateur level" meant that all members of a college sports team or other amateur competition were "entitled" to their own shrine page. The text says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." and "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." If any of these fellows are professionals who ever played in the K-League, they would probably qualify, but the Korean National League is not fully professional. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All not reasonable to bundle all these players together. Reasonable for Korean 2nd level players to generally be kept due to stature of football in country. Eldumpo (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is reasonable since they all fail the same criteria and all play for the same club. The Korea National League is clearly a semi-pro league which violates WP:ATHLETE automatically. Furthermore, all the articles lack sources and have no assertion of notability. Spiderone 08:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG - none fully pro league Steve-Ho (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some of the arguments in favor of keeping don't address the issue of notability, so after a thorough examination of the discussion, it seems consensus supports deletion here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Pools

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

This article about a non publicly traded company reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. I'm not too familiar with the company in detail, but I doubt its notability. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. While this is a consumer business, I have found no sources other than the one provided; Google News yields nothing of value. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This news article highlights a program that Endless Pools has been involved in, in conjunction with the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. More details here. Certainly the endless pool concept, and this company in particular, have been the primary subject of many other articles, such as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanata (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a couple of sentences and the relevant reference from above. Shanata (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer reads as an advertisment and cites multiple sources.Bvdrunner (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is pure product placement. The addition questionable sources that simply describe or praise the product does nothing to suggest that this product is notable; rather it makes maters worse, as the content of this article is mere spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gavin.collins makes a good point, the notable aspect of the Endless Pools article is not the company, but rather the type of exercise equipment they produce, which is partially covered in the current swimming pool article's section on exercise pools and is significantly elaborated in the article Resistance swimming. In fact, this article already specifically mentions Endless Pools. Shanata (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Pools & Endless Pool are registered trademarks of Endless Pools, Inc. The listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endless_Pool currently resolves to a generic "Swimming Machine" category listing. While we are a type of swimming machine our trademarked term shouldn't be used as a redirect and category title. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndlessPools (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (reality)

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

unreferenced, possible original research, reads like an essay written in-universe style. unencyclopedic. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Matrix (series). Unreferenced, but could potentially be spun out to separate article on production of metaphysics. Probably should not exist separate from Matrix (fictional universe); i.e. no need for separate articles on each, since really they've only garnered significant coverage examining them in juxtaposition. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is excessively detailed plotcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely composed of original research about a fictional subject with no evidence of real-world notability. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EEMIV or possibly transwiki somewhere. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is pure OR, but more problematically it is duplicative of information in other articles. Also, slicing the setting of the Matrix movies into the fictional "true reality" and fictional "illusory reality" is a step too far. Abductive (reasoning) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Matrix (series). There seems to be broad support for Sceptre's proposed merger of the other articles as well, but as they were not part of this AfD I have not done so as part of this close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (fictional universe)

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

unreferenced, possible original research, reads like an essay written in-universe style. unencyclopedic. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Only with a rewrite. I understand the point of the article, but it needs better organization. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Matrix (series). Unreferenced, but could potentially be spun out to separate article on production of metaphysics. Probably should not exist separate from Matrix (reality); i.e. no need for separate articles on each, since really they've only garnered significant coverage examining them in juxtaposition. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote for keep and change. The Matrix did create a universe ripe for roleplaying which was used in the Matrix Online game by Sony. http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/index.vm. People developed their own storylines as evident at the Sony site. Universe-style character-view writing is part of the roleplaying experience. If Wikipedia feels that does not fit then I accept it, but I do argue that to document roleplaying or a fantasy world accurately requires a view from the inside. However the writing is unappealing and I find the Versions part unreadable. Anrawel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Matrix is important enough to have the break out article. As mentioned above, it could probably be referenced. I's up to the nom to show otherwise, since the criterion for deletion is unreferenceable. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be important enough to have a breakout article, but is this really the article you mean? I'm not doubting its notability, just that this article isn't very encyclopedic, and is, quite frankly an unreferenced mess. Perhaps what should happen is that elements of this article should be incorporated into The Matrix (franchise) article, until the quality is of a standard to warrant a breakout article. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge Matrix (reality) and Mega City (The Matrix) (and possibly also Zion (The Matrix)) into it. And it'll need a big rewrite.
IIRC, this article was originally created to collect all the revelations about the fictional universe's history into one place (and to help prevent such descriptions clogging up the plot summary of The Matrix Reloaded, though of course that article currently has its own issues), and I still think a good article covering that would be a useful thing to have.
However, I've never been sure whether this article should discuss only the virtual reality system the characters plug into, or cover the more general "fictional universe" in which all the stories take place. If we decide it's the latter, perhaps Zion (The Matrix) should also be merged into the article. Again, whatever happens, it'll need to be extensively rewritten...
As for reference sources: it might be acceptable to cite dialogue from the film (and games, and comics) and quote it in a footnote reference, as has been done in the featured video game article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater#cite_note-17. To quote the policy:

Primary sources ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures... Our policy: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Does piecing together the history of a fictional world from statements made in different films count as "interpretation" that would require a secondary source?
If all that's not possible, I'd prefer the core elements to be moved to The Matrix (franchise), as User:EEMIV and User:Robsinden suggested, rather than deleted entirely.
--Nick R^Talk 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I now agree with User:Sceptre's comment below: condense Matrix (fictional universe), Mega City (The Matrix) and Zion (The Matrix) down to be more concise, and then merge them all into a "setting" section of The Matrix (series). --Nick R^Talk 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially completely composed of original research about a fictional subject with no evidence of real-world notability. Redirecting to The Matrix (series) would also be possible, but I don't think this is really a likely search term. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sjc (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The deletion arguments are flawed (for this reason): non-notability (not policy), WP:NOR (not true), unreferenced (that can be improved, much like the style problems), "unencyclopedic" (vague term). - Draeco (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Related to WP: OR and WP: Synthesis. It does not attempt to establish research by presenting any reliable third party source in an inline citation allowing other editors to verify the information. Do not agrree with merge because of the lack of any sourced material at this time. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to collect information for various articles in one place. This is a good time for allowing the notability of various works to spill over into another articles. Other problems are fixable, and this is a good merge target. Nerfari (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your rational, wouldn't a portal, project, or even the main article talk page be more suitible for compiling information. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Matrix (fictional universe), Matrix (reality), Mega City (The Matrix), Zion (The Matrix), and other location articles into The Matrix (series), in a section called "Setting". The current series article is woefully incomplete and offers no context as to the setting of the franchise. By merging, we remove these non-compliant articles, and improve vastly one article that needs it, with little vital information lost. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per 92.28.76.45 Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to see this Merged somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the content and all of the history, probably the general merge suggested by Sceptre is the best. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To paraphrase what I posted elsewhere, as this problem seems to be endemic, many of the editors voting for "keep" would agree that the information on this page is inconcise and unenyclopedic, and would need a hefty rewrite to remove any unsourced information and original research. I'd have thought therefore that they would agree that this article should not exist in its current form. It doesn't appear that anyone would be willing to rewrite this article as it would be too daunting a task. Hence my proposal for deletion. After deletion, perhaps the information could be added concisely to the The Matrix (series) page bit by bit, and if it warrants another break-out article then it would eventually evolve naturally into that article. I have this question: What "information" is actually contained on this page that meets wikipedia policy? Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Overview and See Also sections could be merged more or less as is. That's several paragraphs of usable material. It's not brilliant prose and lacks inline citations, but neither of those failings require deletion to address. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this removes the bulk of the article (the really messy bit). Then, if these two sections were added to the Matrix (series) page, then this page could be deleted? Let's do it! Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, after a merge a page should generally be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution. See Wikipedia:Merge and Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the The Matrix (franchise) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I vote for merging it with the franchise's article. Allemannster (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Utter absence of any sort of evidence and author request to delete (see below). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turas faith

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable movement. No applicable Google hits for "Turas faith", "Turasism", or "Venerable Turas". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am working to bring this article up to scratch, and would welcome and appreciate anyone else's help in doing so. Edward1967 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concern isn't whether the article is up to scratch but whether the topic is notable or even verifiable. There must be third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By bringing it up to scratch, I meant (among other things) getting hold of some 3rd party sources! Edward1967 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Edward1967, sources should have been found before you created the article for the third time. tedder (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - To Turanism. The above article is just alternate spelling of Turanism. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What? No. It has nothing to do with Turanism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I am sorry if I misread the article and philosophy, and misinterpreted the timelines and inception of both the individual and the real conception of Turanism, but all three lined-up and I assumed just a possible mis-spelling. If I am wrong – delete…if not redirect. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Where I live this is certainly a notable group. While I find them somewhat mysterious and weird and don't know much about them, they are always about and handing out soup and books to the homeless as well as trying to sell their books. They ARE notable. Nebulousnotions (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Nebulousnotions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sorry, but Wikipedia's criteria for establishing notability don't include your own personal knowledge! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are big in the UK, i guess you lot are all in the US? 95.211.8.133 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google is international, so I'm skeptical that they're "big" in the UK if Google has no indication that they exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to their website, they have 2 centres in London, and centres in Basingstoke, Kettering, Manchester and Glasgow. Seems pretty big to me. Nebulousnotions (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - People can write websites that say anything they want. That's why Wikipedia has criteria for assessing notability, with particular criteria for groups. Note that self-proclaimed bigness isn't a criterion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the Turas faith is perfectly legitimate thank you very much and i take offence at u saying there is 'no indication they exist'!!!!!! i thought we had freedom of religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.94.228.2 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has also been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, there's no relation to Turanism that I can see. Second, I cannot find a single reliable source that discusses this. Google / google news are pulling up blanks. Without multiple, independent reliable sources to back things up, we can't have verifiability. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also, delete Venerable Turas which redirects to Turas faith --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a problem, should the article be deleted. Redirects to a non-existent page are deleted as a matter of course. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Venerable Turas had a speedy tag that I put and the creater of the article removed it by redirect and the bot didn't put it back so I did. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am sorry, when I first looked at the article and did some quick research I saw that the comparisons with Turanism were within a reasonable expectation that the new editor here on Wikipedia just made a small spelling mistake. After further research, pointed out by —Largo Plazo , I see that they are two different and distinct religions, but extremely close in philosophy. In that light, when I could not find any mentions’ of the organization in Google News - Google Books or Google Scholar, have to go with Delete. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though this is now off-topic for this article, I can't help noting that Turanism isn't a religion at all, while you continue to refer to it as one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a small differences between political movements and religion. In fact, most individuals have blurred the line (or some think, have erased the line) between the two. Just ask Jew's - Christian's or Muslim's with concern to the Middle East. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hoax. I find nothing when I google it.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This should also include Venerable Turas, which I just changed to a redirect to the article in question. — Sebastian 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why is anyone who says anything positive about the Turas faith blocked? sounds like religious bigotry to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.175.4 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has also been blocked as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree. Unfortunately it seems as if this so-called debate has already been decided by the in-clique here at Wikipedia and this is merely a show trial. Can't we please have a proper debate without all this blocking and other dirty tricks to bias the outcome? Edward1967 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For your information: It is extremely rare for IP users to contribute to deletion discussions at all. It is also extremely rare for people who have otherwise never made any edits on Wikipedia to suddenly contribute to an administrative procedure. Therefore, the fact that there is suddenly an influx, in this discussion, of IP users
    1. all operating from IP addresses from which Wikipedia contributions haven't come before,
    2. all operating from open proxies,
    3. all having the same opinion on this matter (which is the opposite of the stance taken by every registered user who has contributed besides yourself [the author] and Nebulousnotions who, while a registered user, is also a single-purpose account who has never edited anything else on Wikipedia),
    4. all ignoring the reason given for the deletion nomination,
    5. and all focusing instead on a supposition of religious persecution,

makes it look like they might be contrived. I'd like to suggest that you read about sock puppetry, a behavior which is taken seriously on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Why are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? I have done nothing wrong! If you are so convinced with your silly accusations, get some real proof. When one of the people you are targeting turns out to be a registered user, you accuse them of being a single purpose account? Come on, it's pretty obvious you are looking for any excuse to shut down debate. What are you hiding from? I suggest you read WP:attack and WP:NPOV, both of which you are currently flouting. Anyone would think you are trying to discourage new editors. Then again, maybe you are, so your clique can keep trolling Wikipedia in this manner? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopaedia for anyone to edit? If so, why are you shuting down debate in this way? Like I said, it looks to anyone who sees it like a show trial! (UTC)Edward1967 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did I accuse you of anything? I was talking about the IP users who were blocked and explaining, in a perfectly objective manner, the reason why their behavior was suspicious. Why are you so defensive? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You just claimed I was a sockpuppet, did you not? Edward1967 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I did not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As far as your accusation of attempting to shut down debate is concerned, a debate consists of one person addressing the issues raised by the other. The primary issue raised here involved the article not meeting Wikipedia's standards for WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Not a single one of the respondents so far who is been in favor of keeping the article has addressed these points, instead making comments that do nothing to remedy the cited problems. This is not debate; there has been no debate to shut down. Meanwhile, if the allegations are wrong—if you can provide qualifying references to verify the existence of the Turas faith as well as establishing its notability—then it would be much more valuable for you to spend your time on doing that than on complaining that there are rules and implying that they are being applied out of ulterior motives rather than because that's routine maintenance around here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't been prepared till now to dub it a hoax, but I noticed that on the website it says that the Book of Turas is "available in bookshops and online". Yet the site doesn't contain a link to the supposedly online book! And of course there are no Google hits for "book of turas". Also, I noticed that the site doesn't provide contact or location information for the supposed organization's supposed branches, which is kind of strange considering that listing them would normally be for the purpose of giving local people a way to connect with them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assure you this is not a hoax or anything of the sort, but I agree the TFI's website design leaves a bit to be desired! I have now copied the content of the article to my userspace, and I will continue working on it from there until it is up to scratch to re-create the article. In the mean time, go ahead and delete it. Fair compromise? Edward1967 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm terribly curious: how can anything you do to the article cause the requisite but currently nonexistent reliable source references to the article's topic to suddenly manifest themselves? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will do some research and find sources, that's all. Edward1967 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was amused to see that the server for the Turas website is probably within a few feet of the server for RHaworth.com. Also since my website is on Box16 and yours is on Box17, it is a good bet that your website was only created in 2009. So "not (yet) notable" is another deletion reason. But please pass my details to the secretary of your Lewisham branch and if actual human-to-human contact is established, I might revise my opinion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kincaid

This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV determined a relisting was in order, considering low attendance at that AfD, and the new contention that nominations for major awards constitute notability under WP:PORNBIO. Still, weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see how she meets pornbioBalloonman 03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a long list of movies she has acted in. Appeared in at least 5 Pictorials about her. As stated above, been nominated for several major awards. Mathmo ^Talk 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Mathmo. Brusegadi 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment which awards? Corpx 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep imdb results seem prolific and references provided for AVN nominations. Satisfies at least two criteria per WP:PORNBIO Tendancer 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think she satisfies two criteria in porbio --Art8641 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PORNBIO states "Performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards" which in turn listed AVN. Individual is listed at google cached AVN nominations list for "Best Actress" [4], there you go. Tendancer 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AVN award nominations and WP:PORNBIO Corpx 15:05, 13 August 2007 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vasilyev (writer)

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

From the article: "a internet-based Russian science fiction writer who specializes primarily in fan fiction". Only published work mentioned is print-on-demand by a non-notable independent company. Article doesn't point out any reason he should otherwise be notable. Remurmur (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ellol (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's he is certainly not a fan fiction "writer". He is a normal science fiction writer. One of his books (Day watch) co-authored with Sergey Lukyanenko was published in English translation in U.S./U.K.

I am not sure why the note about "fan fiction" has ever appeared, but it's wrong.

"Internet-based" is also certainly a false statement. With the number of published books numbering at least hundreds thousands, it's certainly wrong.

The article is a mess, though, and cleaning it up would certainly not harm it. ellol (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some offending stuff.Borock (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ellol. His books look quite notable, with a $32 million movie based on one of them. Gruntler (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable. We should trust the Russian sources, unless proven differently.Borock (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jini (IRC client)

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

DELETE. This is part of one of the most massive walled gardens I've come across in quite some time. Yes, this is yet another non-notable chat program. No, it does not have anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durrrrrrr: Per Uncle G's comment on another of one of the IRC Client Bataan Death March AfDs of 2009, "the burden is on you, and everyone here at AFD, to look for sources yourself. Otherwise you have no way of knowing, and thus no real grounds for claiming, whether something is notable or not." --Milowent (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia:Verification policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'" This is a core policy. For those asking for deletion, it is nice and polite to show what effort has been to find searches, but it is not a requirement. Miami33139 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Or you can try to use that little {{findsources}} template which someone conveniently linked above. I'll do the work for you: News, Books, and Scholar = 0 hits. ZERO. JBsupreme (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#jini. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted on the page, no significant coverage. Triplestop x3 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Blast Family: One of Our Own

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

Article about a non-notable CD release, which reads like a combination of a personal blog entry and an advert to buy the CD. No third-party sources are provided. DAJF (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a blog. This is a large project in terms of a fund raising effort on behalf of professional musicians to raise money for a fellow musician to assist with large medical expenses. This is the first of many fund raising efforts by this group and this wiki page could grow into a series of pages related to all fund raising efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeswille (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A9. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I won't go speedy, but in the article's current state, it doesn't fall under WP:MUSIC. I hope that Mr. Welch recovers, but glad he survived. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In closing this discussion, I have to weigh the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, as required by WP:DGFA. This leads me to discount or take into account only very lightly all "keep" opinions for the following reasons: According to our notability guideline, WP:N, a subject has a dedicated article if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The "delete" opinions claim that the subject lacks such coverage, a reasonable presumption given the lack of reliable independent sources cited in the article. The "keep" opinions largely do not address this issue, instead extolling the product's alleged popularity or other merits, but these characteristics are not relevant in the light of WP:N. To the extent the "keep" opinions do address the sourcing issue, they do so unpersuasively, linking generally to Google search results, which are not sources of the sort required by WP:N. Only Yarcanox links to two specific works, but [5] limits coverage to one sentence and a screenshot, and [6] merely mentions the subject by way of example. That is manifestly not the sort of coverage that "addresses the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Konversation

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

DELETE. Yet another NN chat client. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this client might not be that well-known to Windows users. But on Linux, Konversation is _the_ client for KDE (if you remember, KDE and Gnome are the two big desktop environments for Linux). Even if it isn't talked as much about as e.g. kvirc (most likely because kvirc is also popular amongst Windows users), it's certainly more popular on Linux.Yarcanox (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yarcanox, you sound like you know this material! Please add multiple, reliable sources, independent of the subject to the article. It isn't about our personal knowledge but what documentation we can take from the rest of the world. The statement that this is a well-known client must be verified, not our opinions. If you know how to demonstrate this from good, reliable sources, please provide them. Miami33139 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly I have no print sources. I can just tell Konversation is shipped with all big distributions, the channel is quite crowded and the web (for you that's probably not really notable) has many references. And it's simply one of the advanced clients and not just some of those ultra simple ones or a some-months-old project. All I can do is help the article gets better with web sources and state that I personally have the impression it is pretty well-known amongst KDE users and also quite popular. Dream Focus seems to have found some traces of notable sources though (see below). I have to admit my statement sounded a bit more objective and funded than it actually is. Yarcanox (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Print sources found via google books (now finally backing up my previous keep). "The Business Guide to Free Information Technology" by Tim Jowers and Contributors explains IRC to business people as a means for support. For that, it picks Konversation as an example chat client, page 35.[7] "Linux: the complete reference" by Richard Petersen lists XChat, naim and Konversation as IRC client examples (page 304) [8]. There are more references, but those are the first interesting ones I found. Yarcanox (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the O'Reilly book may also have some coverage on this client but I do not have a copy on hand to check right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for the name plus the word "Linux" shows it is mentioned in plenty of books. [9] And we really should leave any Linux articles to the people that use Linux, and can thus be better at determining what is commonly seen and what isn't. Dream Focus 03:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Behind XChat, Konversation is one of the most popular GUI clients for KDE on the Linux family of operating systems. A suitable Google books search is: [10] --Tothwolf (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As say above, Konversation is the most popular and used irc client in KDE [11] , every major distro comes with Konversation, like openSUSE, Mandriva, Kubuntu. --KDesk (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125% Keep As per above, Konversation is, indeed, one of most popularIRC client. In fact, it had also shown on the top list in searches. This gives sufficient proof that Konversation is really well-known, and most probably, a highly-used IRC chat client. --Mark Chung (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of late, development on this project has been quite intensive and the first stable release of its port to qt4/kde4 is nearly complete (v1.2). As has been mentioned, Konversation has been the official irc client of the kde project, and a very robust and widely used version has exists for Kde3. As far as software which has a Wikipedia article, Konversation is far from the least noteworthy. I will try to find some suitable sources when I have some time. This article is very outdated and requires expansion. Ormaaj (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene pandala

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

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news has hits about this person (in The Hindu, circulation 1.4 million), and a cursory look shows they describe him as a well-known architect. See, e.g., [12] ("architect Eugene Pandala, who has played a major role in popularising the concept of mud construction" and goes on to quote him in depth as "Mr. Eugene"). Google books has one hit describing "the mud houses of Prof Eugene Pandala, which have received international acclaim."

Nominator first prodded this article 6 minutes after its creation, and prod said "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7." Yes, he's probably not a notable musician because he's an ARCHITECT. Prodder then fixed it for a person, but COME ON. Its difficult to follow WP:BEGIN on this kind of article in 6 minutes. Of course article should move to Eugene Pandala for capitalization.--Milowent (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Besides what you find in google search, Archiect Eugene Pandala is popular in india through the local medias which is not available through Google. His fashonable and neo mud buildings are a hope to the people who love the nature and for the people who need low cost housing. His Tsunami housing done for the Leading indian News paper Malayala Manoramma Circulation of more than 12 Lakhs, Has many references to his work and One Sunday Magazine featured is work which gave hope to the poor people to build affordabe houses. Many Local news paper in regional laguages have featured his low cost buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.22.82 (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just fixed one of the references listed in the article. A notable publication which counts as a reliable source, Business Standard, had an article about the guy winning an award. The award one was notable enough to mention, so that counts to his notability as well. Dream Focus 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the remaining references, and changed the articles name. His last name should obviously be capitalized. Dream Focus 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red Lorry Yellow Lorry. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Weight

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

Non-notable musician/author. He is not covered in detail by independent reliable sources and therefore fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. JD554 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band Red Lorry Yellow Lorry. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above. He has notable associations, though as mentioned in initial AfD, not enough reliable sources to merit a separate entry. --Whoosit (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snak

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

DELETE. These programs appear to be dime a dozen, but unfortunately this particular one has nothing in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications and fails all relevant notability tests. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The burden for the references wasn't around for many years of Wikipedia's history. No one went back and added references to prove notability to the hundreds of thousands of articles that didn't have them before. Anyway, I search for it at the Google book search and Google news along with the word "Mac" and found plenty of coverage of it. Adding some to the article now. Please search a bit better before trying to delete something. Dream Focus 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just searching around the news and books you can see it mentioned in many places. I added what Cnet said about it, in an official review, that should be enough. Did anyone contact the article creator and tell them that the newer suggested guidelines say he should link to things proving its notable? He/she might've come and helped out. Dream Focus 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most popular IRC clients for the Macintosh platform. A suitable Google books search is: [13] It also receives good coverage in this book:
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "IRCing On The Macintosh: Snak". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 64 –&#32, 66. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is another one of the slew of AfDs about IRC clients done last week, almost every single one has been kept after discussions showing references, etc. Detail here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Continued_wikistalking/wikihounding_and_harassment#Breakdown_of_AFD_intersections if you dare. --Milowent (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tothwold @ 5:05 UTC Oct 4. Books on Macs or IRC give this coverage typically as one of three main mac clients. See Paul Mutton, IRC Hacks, O'Reilly Media: Sebastopol, 2004, pp. 13–14 who covers it as one of "three of the more popular, and more powerful, IRC clients available for the Mac OS" (p. 11) or Gene Steinberg, Mac OS 9: The Complete Reference, McGraw Hill Osborne: New York, 2000, pp. 856–857 (beginning "Two IRC clients stand out on the Mac: ircle 3.0.4 and Snak 3.1.") 86.44.36.76 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Plot

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

DELETE. Non notable freeware application unsupported by non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: If you can find any passing notability I think there are applicable lists into which merge of other topics has been suggested. Things like open source plotting software etc. If the genre is notable but limited then each member of marginable notability may as well go there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I PRODed this back in Feb, and there have been no improvements since. I see no place to merge this to and no reason to merge it. Note this is gratis, but not open source. I couldn't find anything to support WP:N and I can't now. --Karnesky (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G7 - One Author who Blanked the page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero inch policy

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

Contested prod. Unsourced neologism or original research. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. It was popularized at Yale University by Jabigail Mamy in the fall of 2009 in the year of our lord, Jesus Christ. Contains statements that read like obvious hoaxes or patent nonsense: In Japan, the policy is often known as the xing ba ke qing sing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete - It looks like something made up one day. And it's wrong as well: to quote the article, "In Europe, the policy is often called the Zero Centimeter Policy, especially in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Despite the best attempts of the European Union, we still use imperial units in the United Kingdom. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frugalytics

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

Non-notable search engine. Haakon (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the search engine is notable. While the service is still young, Frugalytics has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary reliable and independent sources. An example would be one of the leading BlackBerry related publications BlackBerry Sync - an article which was also re-published by Business Week. http://blackberrysync.com/2009/05/get-the-best-price-in-shopping-with-free-frugalytics-v10-for-your-blackberry/ The service has also been featured on the TechCrunch network of publications. Mobile search & discovery is a rapidly evolving industry. Because of this speed of innovation, over bearing attention on the product pages of large corporations like Google would provide readers with a myopic view of the industry. Because of the above reasons, I believe the article should be kept. Searchmaven (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To address Searchmaven above (who, by the way, is the sole contributor of the article, and whose commentary perks the WP:COI flags for me), there is no demonstration of notability. Also, the BB Sync article is but one review, and reprint (i.e., duplication) of this article in Business Week does not connote notability. Forgive me for being about as subtle and gentle as a tornado, but buzzwords don't help the fact that there is an observable dearth of demonstrated notability. I see many places that offer it for download and plenty of blogs. I see some reviews, but the scope strikes me as narrow. To be honest, it's difficult to get software into here - it truly has to pass WP:CORP, which, since the closure of the old software notability guidelines, is the correct guideline for software notability. If you want to change my mind, follow the guidelines there, as well as here and here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't use any buzzwords. Searchmaven (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No intersections from independent reliable secondary sources. The only independent source is a blog, which is not a reliable one. Anyway, even if it were reliable source, it would be necessary more independent sources per WP:NPOV. Algébrico (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For the simple reason that I'm really annoyed about the fact that I take my time to try and create interesting articles in a field where I am an expert and you guys keep deleting them for lack of notability. My article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AskWiki was deleted when this was a joint venture that included a signed agreement with WikiMedia and the search engine was featured by WIRED magazine! Searchmaven (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're concerned about the article being possibly deleted, please remember that this is not a vote, this is a consensus, and that we're going on the merits on the article. If you don't want it to be deleted then I recommend fixing it. With this, I now see COI - not a good thing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT; and second !vote stricken --Cybercobra (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bardwick

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

Not notable to me. Sources given are all primary sources. No coverage in mainstream media. SyG (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on two factors. One, Mr. Bardwick has been the subject of numerous coverage by third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources, as shown here [14]. Two, Mr. Bardwick has competed at the highest level of Competition, as the before mentioned references validated, so he qualifies under Athletes. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding your first point, the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth articles you cite are written by Bardwick, not written about Bardwick, so I do not see how it gives notability to Bardwick. The fourth article is from a local newspaper and talks about a local Simultaneous exhibition — nothing close to the requirements from Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes. The tenth article is pay-per-view and the extract given does not cite Bardwick, so nothing can be useful from that.

Regarding your second point, I do not see anywhere a mention that he competed at the highest level of competition, be it professional or amateur. I have to admit my difficulties to find my way in the 213 sources you threw out randomly. Do you have a precise source mentioning that Bardwick competed in, say, the World Chess Championship or the Chess Olympiad ? SyG (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess is not covered by WP:ATHLETE. See [15]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that User:Shoessss's statement about WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant, right ? SyG (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There is no indication in the article that he competed at the highest levels. Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ahhh, National Chess Master gives you a hint. Likewise,, did you read the articles from Denver Post – The Columbian – The Independent – Washington Post – Star Tribune – International Herald Tribune - The Gazette – Chicago Sun-Times – The Record or Denver Post, just to name a few. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Chess Master is not even on Wikipedia, so it means nothing. To be notable you shall at leat be GM. National Chess Master is below Candidate Master which is below FIDE Master which is below IM which is below GM. See ? :-) SyG (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the title had to be included in Wikipedia before it was considered notable. I thought the guidelines at Notability was our first criteria to look at. Such as independent coverage, which I believe I have shown, or meeting one of the sub-categories, which I believe I have shown. Am I mistaken? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all GMs have articles and IMs generally don't unless they are also a noted author or coach or something. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And when we say the "highest levels of competition" we mean the strength of the opposition, not the altitude of the city (Denver). Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I am sorry if I am misinterpreting you comments, BUT did you read my Keep opinion and the references I showed. If you happen to overlook, here they are again [16]. As you can see, Mr. Bardwick has not only received local coverage, but International coverage from third party – creditable – verifiable – independent sources, in excess of 250+ articles. If this does not meet our criteria for Notability here at Wikipedia, I am not sure what does then. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I checked are articles he wrote for a local newspaper - not articles about him. Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the articles I referenced I did not include the Rocky Mountain News, which Mr. Bardwick is a contributing editor. However, if we take this into account, Mr. Bardwick , could also be considered for inclusion here at Wikipedia under Creative professionals as he is looked upon as a ;”…a person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors“. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please cite a precise reference for that ? Do you have links where his peers or successors cite him ? SyG (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Delete here. The sources seem to validate Bardwick's competition at the state level, and presumably (since he did well) at the national level. However that does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE which requires play at major international competitions. In many of the articles about high-level competition from the reference above, Bardwick's name appears only as the author (and for a local paper). Arguably he is more notable as an author than a player. I reserve the right to change my view if more references can be found. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about this, [17] which shows his games against Tony Miles as covered by The Independent or his games against Nick de Firmian once again covered by the The Independent – Washington Post & Star Tribune or possibly the coverage by the Rocky Mountain News of his play against Michael Mulyar as shown here [18]. Does that help. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get at the first article - registration required - but the second is coverage of the Colorado State touranment. That is not high enough competition to warrant a Wikipedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Play against Nick de Firmian does not constitute high enough competition. Do you want us to dig up Bobby Fisher :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who you play, it's about the level of the competition. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you saying that the level of competition has nothing to do with the individual you are playing against? Is not the “competition” the other player, and that players competency, or lack of proficiency, influence the level of competition? Or am I just being dumb today. :-) ShoesssS ^Talk 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the level at which the competition is organized. If a player happened to live in the same county as a Grandmaster they might play against that Grandmaster in the county championship. But they are still competing at the county level, not at the Grandmaster level. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Michael Mulyar is an International Master, but FIDE does not list him. If he was an IM he should be listed by FIDE. Bardwick is not listed as a member of FIDE so aparantly he has no international competition. Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could understand the delete opinion if Mr. Bardwick only competed against the hierarchy of the Chess world in a matchs set-up for local grandeur. However, in looking through the articles I referenced above, I see him playing on a consistent bases as a prime competitor against the best in the world. That, given with the two books he wrote, as a Chess expert along with the proliferation of articles, from 3rd party - creditable - verifiable and independent sources, in reference to Mr. Bardwick , I cannot understand why he is not already included here at Wikipedia. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

against the best in the world - FIDE shows no international competition for him. chessgames.com and ChessBase don't list any games either. Bubba73 (talk), 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I just have to assume than that the Denver Post – The Columbian – The Independent – Washington Post – Star Tribune – International Herald Tribune - The Gazette – Chicago Sun-Times – The Record or Denver Post are misleading me. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The U.S. Chess Championship also know as the America's Foundation for Chess also recommends Mr. Bardwick book "Chess Workbook for Children", as shown here, [19]. I would say that is pretty notable. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America's Foundation for Chess is not the US chess championship. Bubba73 (talk), 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AHHH - Yes it is. Didn't read the link I provided did you :-)ShoesssS ^Talk 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. From "about" at their webpage: "America’s Foundation for Chess (AF4C) is committed to the education of our children. " Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - Still have not read the link have you? :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A St. Loius club sponsored the last US championsip, and they aren't the US Championship either. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize a sponsor was the event. And for a third time, have you read the link I provided. It is here on Wikipedia. Either correct the article I referenced or Checkmate (Pun Intended :-) ShoesssS ^Talk 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - the sponsor is not the event. But you said that the organization is the US Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that link, and it says that America's Foundation for Chess - an educational group - recommends Todd Bardwick's book, among others. It says nothing about his level of play, and does not claim that AFC in any way "is" the US Chess Championship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"…From 1999 to 2006, the Championship was sponsored and organized by the Seattle Chess Foundation (later renamed America's Foundation for Chess).’’ As shown here U.S. Chess Championship. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. They sponsored the event which is not the same thing as being the event. That means they provided the location and logistics. And it also says "held under the auspices of the U.S. Chess Federation". Bubba73 (talk), 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but where does it say that? Have I overlooked it? The link I provided, after checking and re-rechecking and re-re-checking does not say that. Please provide a link. Thanks . ShoesssS ^Talk 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Chess Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right (my aplogies)....but did you overlook to also include since 1936? That changes the dynamics of the meaning of the statement quite a bit, don't you think? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it changes it. It means from 1936 through the present. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.(ec)You keep repeating this list, but you haven't demonstrated that they contain the significant, non-trivial coverage that WP:N demands. Playing against GMS and IMs does not necessarily mean you are notable. Players such as Miles competed in weekend tournaments and local leagues because they loved playing chess at all different levels. It doesn't mean the opponents they encountered deserved Wikipedia articles. As DJ Clayowrth says, it's the level at which the competition is organised. Bardwick has not achieved big enough results in major events. Also, many many people write chess books and countless chess books are published every year. It doesn't mean all the authors are notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if I am coming across as cantankerous. But has ANYONE looked at the references. TWO HUNDRED and EIGHTY-FIVE. That is not trivial, by any stretch of the imagination. Two, how many of those other authors are endorsed by the U.S. Chess Championship. He has ~~three~~ Two books listed on the HOME PAGE, as I showed above. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't really mean much. It's the quality of the coverage. It appears he has written two chess education titles, Teaching Chess in the 21st Century and the Chess Workbook for Children, that have appeared on some recommended reading lists of chess organisations and been reviewed on some chess blogs. The question is, is this coverage substantial and significant enough to meet the notability threshold. I don't believe it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, they are not Google hits, and in fact Google has close to 6,000 hits on Mr. Bardwick as shown here; [20]. However, they are Google News searches. The difference between the two is that a plain old Google search will bring up Blogs - Wikipedia mirror sites - FaceBook and other references that are viewed as unreliable. However, Google News list articles from third party - creditable - independent - verifiable sources, ONCE AGAIN that I listed above, that a vast majority of reasonable individuals find as acceptable for establishing notability. Typically, most disinterested parties find that 50-75 articles listed on Google News established the Notability Guidelines for the subject or individual in question. In that this individual has well over TWO HUNDRED and FIFTY, individual articles either referencing the subject or in-depth interviews, most reasonable Editors find this as satisfactory. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may be from creditable publications, but is the coverage significant? I've yet to see anything. Could you please provide an example of an "in-depth interview"? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Google News hits seem to point to articles written by Mr. Bardwick. They are not about Mr. Bardwick. The main claim to notability is probably the chess manuals he wrote, one of which has an independent review on chessville.com, but I am not sure if that is really significant. I am withholding judgement on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem. But take a look at Creative Professionals. In that Mr. Bardwick could be considered and expert, and in my opinion is, he can also qualify for inclusion under this heading. In the meantime, I have started working on the article. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Comment Along the guideline you cite Creative Professionals, could you please cite a precise reference for that ? Do you have links where his peers or successors cite him ? SyG (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that he meets WP:ATHLETE. Who he has played against is irrelevant. — neuro 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the original publisher of this page. While Mr. Bardwick is a master-level chess player, and perpetually among the best in Colorado, I did not seek to include him on Wikipedia for his chess abilities, because he has not attained the highest levels of International competition, as the GM title denotes. Rather, his truly significant contributions have taken the form of chess authorship and education. His camp is the largest and best-established chess training center in the Rocky Mountain Region, and for more than 15 years he wrote an excellent chess column for the Rocky Mountain News, which had a very large regional distribution. I believe ShoesssS is thinking along the correct lines with the comment "Mr. Bardwick, could also be considered for inclusion here at Wikipedia under Creative professionals as he is looked upon as a ;”…a person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors“." Thanks for considering this input, Moab2021. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.207.86 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your input, indeed. By any chance, would you have references in which Mr Bardwick is "widely cited by his peers or successors", so that he would qualify under Creative professionals ? SyG (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article had a claim to being kept, it would most likely be due to his role as a chess teacher and author. Unfortunately, we don't have much third-party opinion testifying to his importance in those roles. The lead of the article emphasizes his performance as a tournament player, which I think exaggerates his significance in that department, since the US Chess Federation web site says that his rating is 2211. International Masters are usually up above 2400, and the world's top players are typically 2700-2800. In the whole world there must be 2,500 or more players higher-ranked than Bardwick, so he is not a top-level competitor. According to this entry Bardwick has not played in a USCF-rated tournament since 1996, so it's been quite a few years since he was last active as a tournament player. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more like 20,000 higher-rated players in the world. I checked his tournament record and he usually was in the top 10 in the Colorado Open. Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in reliable independent sources as noted in Shoesss comments. His work as an author, promoter, and competitor in the sport make him well worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please point out one "reliable independent source" in the hundreds cited by Shoesss. I have difficulties to find a correct one. SyG (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much per EdJohnston, but just to spell it out more clearly: With a 2211 rating from USCF he classifies as an ambitioned amateur competitor, every small-town chess club has a handful of players that strong. So if notability cannot be established from his teaching or writing endeavours then the article should go. --Pgallert (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references in the article appear to be reliable enough and the article contains too much unreferenced material and material that is "referenced" to unreliable sources. Would need a substantial improvement in the quality of the sources to be kept. - Taxman ^Talk 15:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reliable source. Based upon unreliable sources; no reason for this to stay. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not seem that he has any significant sources. It seems that Bardwick is not notable except, possibly, for his chess publications, but even those are questionable. Grand Mattster 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not strong enough as a player, and the sources are not there to show his writing and coaching are significant enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bruce McMahan

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dos Gringos

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

Although these guys have an interesting story, I could not find any reliable sources at all about them. They have an All Music entry, which reveals that all but one of their CDs was self-released, with the exception of one released on the Viper Driver label. I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC standards for inclusion. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't yet fall into WP:MUSIC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage or any other way it meets WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadology

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

Non-notable term, only one reliable source which pertains to Silk Roadology only. Triadian (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just downright wrong from top to bottom. The study of the relationship of roads to development is, simply, one facet of human geography, which deals in issues such as ribbon development. It's even mis-representing the source, which isn't describing any sort of "roadology" at all, contrary to the article, but is mentioning (not even describing, note) "Silk Roadology", a nonce coinage for the study of the Silk Road, in the title of an institute for studying the Silk Road. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious study of roads is covered by human geography and social studies, like Uncle G says. Amateur study of roads is called many things, such as being a roadgeek, road enthusiast, or member of WP:USRD ;) but nobody really uses the term "roadology". —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds unreal. Dough4872 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought was about road geeks, but this seems to be entirely unrelated. Sounds more of a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were a real field of study persued by academics, it would be worthy of an article. There are lots of academics who might study roads, I'd economic and environmental historians to the list, but there's really no such thing as a roads scholar. And yes I made this comment just to post that awful pun. I'll go away now. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, we Roads Scholars really do exist, my friend. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/REdirect to Odology (Greek odos - road) -- I am sure there must be a proper word for the study of roads, but this title is a neological bastard, created in Japan by amalgamating an English word (road) with a Greek derived ending. It seems that there is one, though its current article is only a stub and I am not sure that it is not also a neologism, though a lawfully begotten one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odology looks like another candidate for deletion... --NE2 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with that. I'm on it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has international useage. FieldMarine (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really hasn't. It has one usage, as a nonce coinage, in the name of one organization, the Research Center for Silk Roadology. And that name is not even Roadology but Silk Roadology. There is no actual subject denoted here, because this isn't even a recognized word to denote a subject in the first place. Even the aforementioned Research Centre doesn't deal in this. It studies the Silk Road, as the name suggests, and as the source that you cited outright says. Uncle G (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that this company has enough secondary published coverage to show notability are unconvincing. Kevin (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Manufacturing Company

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

Current page is tantamount to being an attack page. It essentially recounts a long tale of legal battles, and rests mainly on uploaded images of a legal complaint against two named persons. This is a primary source. As far as actual secondary sources establishing notability, there is little, if any, attention to this company in the mainstream press. There are notices in the specialist business and financial media saying about 5 years ago the company's assets were being sold off and the name changed. It's unclear how this story of alleged financial misdeeds is notable or encyclopedic. Dbratland (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but sanitize all legal stuff per BLP policy. These bikes do exist, right? not many of them, but they have a following, are bought and sold etc. Notability test should be based not on the organization itself, but on their products; and the article should deal with products firsthand. NVO (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company produced over 800 motorcycles and it was a popular brand that is still listed in the Kelly Blue Book, I used to own one of the bikes. Current legal action was removed.WPPilot (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any secondary sources that establish notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? --Dbratland (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=658737 Business Week Magazine

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/1999/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 1999

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2000/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2000

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2001/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2001

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2002/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2002

http://AEMotorcycleVideo.netmediatec.net 1999 "factory" video

Is this enough?? WPPilot (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in my opinion. Those links only establish existence. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Have any books or articles been written that show American Eagle meets the basic criteria of notability (specifically WP:COMPANY)? The reason I nominated this for deletion (instead of just deleting the attack material) is that I found none.--Dbratland (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability

is Kelly Blue Book "Trivial" to you? Where do you live??? that is recognized the world over as the authoritative data source for ALL motor vehicles. During the dates listed above (before Wiki) that company was one of the big 3, after Harley and Big Dog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dog_Motorcycles The company had been in every motorcycle mag for years before the scandels that are listed. WPPilot (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing Kelly Blue book of lying. The issue is that KBB doesn't say they are notable; they only confirm they made some motorcycles. If American Eagle has been written about in every motorcycle magazine, it should be no trouble at all to cite some. That's all I'm asking for. --Dbratland (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've searched the following magazines, and none of them mention this company, even in passing: American Motorcyclist, Cycle World, Cruising Rider, Rider, Dirt Rider, Motorcyclist, and Motorcycle Consumer News.--Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see 14 mentions in American Motorcyclist and 7 in Cycle World.~~ Withdrawn per Dbratland's comments below. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are false hits. See below... --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha those are "Girly bike" mags !!! Try V Twin, or Easy Rider! We will post those today for you, Dbratland! WPPilot (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - have removed the legal battle stuff because it was unsourced, but would still be good to see more sources to firmly establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, WPPilot, isn't that WP:BIAS right there, for calling a motorcycle magizine girly? I mean seriously. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence =/= notability. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News search shows nearly a thousand hits on "American Eagle" + motorcycle, including this report [21] that the company had become a publicly traded enterprise. In general, publicly traded companies will have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG, even though that coverage is not necessarily easy to find on the web. Even allowing for the likely spurious hits in the news search, the company's business activities appear to have been covered in some detail eg [22] [23] [24] . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED says notabilty is not automatic for publicly traded companies, *although* such companies usually have enough sources to establish notability. The cited articles indicate that the company has been bought and sold and had carried out various financial procedures. All publicly traded companies do these same things, yet that alone does not establish notability. All I'm asking for is for something that can tell me "This company is important because _______ " --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed in my comment, noting the substantial and sustained coverage of the company's activities. And the specific articles I cited included a report discussing the company's manufacturing plans. "All publicly traded companies do these same things" is really a relevant argument; one might as well argue for the deletion of all film actors who haven't won Oscars/whatever, since all film actors act in films, so that can't be a basis for notability. Not a sound argument. And the guideline you cite says specifically that "importance" is not the same as "notability," so that argument also fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. What did this company do that was notable? If this page is not deleted, what is the article going to say? That the company existed, and was bought and sold? That's the whole article? (And not all actors act in films, and of those that do, not all films are notable.) --Dbratland (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of reliable sources available here. Refutation accepted - I remain neutral as regards keeping/deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are false hits. American Eagle Manufacturing Company was founded in 1995. Most of the hits you've found are for the Laverda 750 "American Eagle" of the 1960s and 70s; most of the dates in the search results are before 1995. The article even mentions this under Other “American Eagles”. Every single "American Eagle" hit you mention above for American Motorcyclist and Cycle World are either the Laverda, or something called American Eagle Publications. There is only one exception, the highly ureliable Sonny Barger gives us only this chestunt: "Titan, American Eagle, and American Illusion make what they call 'clone bikes,' and although some of these models are manufactured in America, they often don't make their own engines and are just copies of Harleys." His opinions here don't establish notability.

The question remains: What is American Eagle Manufacturing Company notable for? Simple question. --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a meaningful question, in terms of Wikipedia notability criteria. It meets the notability criteria because of the coverage of its business activities in multiple reliable sources, as I've cited previously I supposed you could answer that it's notable for its business activities. What is The Bodyguard from Beijing notable for? Or Leprechaun 2? Or The British Museum Is Falling Down? "Notable for" isn't really a meaningful concept when looking at Wikipedia notability, and would often call for a subjective answer. "Notable because" is the important concept. And what are Cocoa Puffs, French fries, Dog_food, and labradoodles notable for, other than being what they are? Your "simple question" really doesn't relate to any Wikipedia policy, and therefore neither do your deletion arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labradoodles, cocoa puffs, dog food and so on have all been part of thousands or even millions of people's lives for decades. If they had not existed, many people's ordinary lives would not be the same in all sorts of ways. Even non-users of these things recognize them instantly. They are part of the vocabulary. They are notable for hundreds of things. Leprechaun 2 and their ilk? I'd probably support deleting them if all you showed me were articles saying they existed but never caused a ripple.

This is a company (alleged) to have made a total of 800 motorcycles. Ever. Today Harley-Davidson, which makes well over 200,000 bikes in a bad year, announced they were selling MV Agusta, which few people have heard of because it's a "boutique line" which, last year, made only 5,800 bikes. In one year. Which is over 7 times the number that American Eagle made during its entire existence.[25]

When corporations get the usual snippets announcing mundane actions in the specialized financial press, that does not, to me, meet the basic criterion in WP:N "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." That's insignificant coverage. Incidental coverage. You get that just for existing. I would compare it to various non-notable clubs and groups whose bowling tournaments and bake sales are listed in the events calendars of even major newspapers. Some intern enters whatever you sent them into a calendar, but that doesn't meet WP:N.--Dbratland (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really responding to the question, are you? You're just presenting your own idea of what notability should be -- causing "ripples" in the world, which is fundamentally subjective. There are about two dozen people in the world whose "ordinary lives" would be materially different if Paris Hilton had kept a low profile in life; are you endorsing deleting her article? Or are you proposing judging businesses by the same standards as celebrities? When a company's routine business activities are covered by the business press, like Business Week, that's solid evidence of notability. BW doesn't report on the routine activities of Joe's Fish Market or Jimmy's Dog Groomers or even Paris's Brandy Bistro. When you look at the press coverage of major corporations, 99.9% of what you see reported are "mundane actions." Dow Chemical doesn't get drunk at night, rip its shirt off, dance on a bar, and go home with Lindsay Lohan. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor manufacturer. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability per WP:WEB or WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boticca

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

Notability not established, as sourced. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. All searchable sources are self-published PR releases, with trivial marketing posts on social networking sites. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedied before you could complete this nomination. But salting is an option to consider, as this was the fourth recreation. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bachata moderna

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

Prod contested with the rationale, The Bachata Moderna is a new movement that hasn't been documented properly yet. Which is actually a solid argument for deletion. Delete with no prejudice against recreation once the movement does get properly documented outside Wikipedia. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No sources are cited in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]

External Source: More than just Bachata http://http://www.bachateros.com.au/2009/03/more-than-just-bachata Bachata moderna http://www.bachateros.com.au/about-bachata/styles/bachata-moderna/ This item is unique and important information about the evolution of bachata dance. It should be retained.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (sorry for the forgotten rationale, I have no idea why that happened) Well, this is a difficult close, that much is clear. Many keep !votes make good arguments that this subject is notable outside the limits of the campus. Yet, the delete !votes have argued correctly that while mentions of the subject are plenty, real coverage of it is scarce and is really limited to the "Williams Record" student newspaper. While student newspapers are usually considered reliable sources, those sources covering a subject that is affiliated with said university means that they are not really independent of the subject and thus should not be used to establish notability. And as pointed out by the delete !votes, no other reliable sources have provided any non-trivial coverage of the subject, i.e. coverage of the blog itself rather than what the blog reported. This does not mean that notability is non-achievable but currently it is borderline as DGG puts it but unfortunately for those arguing "keep" on the wrong side of the border. If reliable, third-party sources can be found that non-trivially cover the subject (and not what the subject has reported), a recreation of the article is not against the consensus here. Regards So Why 08:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EphBlog

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

Nonnotable website. It's a blog about Williams College, has only been mentioned in the campus paper and the local newspapers (and not as the subject of an article, just in passing), and appears not to be notable outside the Williams community. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; the sources cited are not independent of the subject and may not be reliable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources cited ARE independent of Williams College: The Berkshire Eagle (which google news says has cited the source 5 times), and North Adams Transcript (4 times). And EphBlog itself is independent from Williams College, though it covers that beat. So independence of sources seems not to be an issue. --Milowent (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)--Milowent (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed those sources to be school papers but I've gone and checked them out and you're correct. However, The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript (owned by the same company and servicing the same area) appear to have run the stories as "local interest" pieces, attributing no greater significance to them than that they happened to someone local. I see your argument, but on the other hand they're really on the level of "Local boy wins big in spelling bee" kind of coverage. I'm not sure the coverage is either significant or independent; the papers have a vested interest in providing a certain number of local interest stories regardless of their newsworthiness. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers cover local stories, there's nothing new about that, and this blog seems to have broken a few stories of primarily local and alumni interest. I'd say the local papers are independent enough, but whether the coverage is significant I have trouble saying since I don't have pay-access to their archives.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have established that at least two of the sources are "independent" of EphBlog and "reliable," The Eagle and The Transcript. (The fact that both papers are owned by the same company is no more relevant than the fact that The New York Times and The Boston Globe are.) Can we also agree that the Williams Record is as well? First, it is "independent" of EphBlog. (I am happy to provide further argument/evidence of this point if needed.) Second, it is "reliable." (It is true that it is a college newspaper, but my understanding is that college papers are treated as reliable by Wikipedia. Can anyone provide a citation to the contrary? I think that the usual dispute is whether or not they are independent of the schools that they cover.) Summary: We have three different reliable, independent sources each providing multiple articles which mention EphBlog. Once we have established that, we can move on to the question of whether or not these article meet the criteria of "significant coverage," which, I agree, is a trickier issue. David.Kane (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DustFormsWords cites WP:N but I would think that, since EphBlog is a blog, that Web content is the more appropriate reference. Is that fair? Editors can check the page for themselves, but the key portion is "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria."

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This phrasing is, obviously, not that different from the wording used in WP:N but I just wanted to highlight it to see if other editors agreed that this was the appropriate standard. The Eagle, Transcript and Record are all completely "independent of the site itself" and have referenced EphBlog in "multiple non-trivial published works." David.Kane (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is just a clarification of WP:N. The issues under your WP:WEB phrasing are that EphBlog has not been the "subject" of them - it's been referenced in passing - and whether the published works are "non-trivial". - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Although some of the articles just mention EphBlog is passing, it is the central subject in, for example, these three^[1]^[2]^[3]. In some of the other articles, EphBlog's importance is somewhere between passing and central. David.Kane (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll give you that, the sources are good. Well done! Which leaves me with nothing but the feeling that a blog whose subject matter is confined entirely to the doings of a single educational institution simply cannot possibly be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a very experienced editor, but I thought that the issue is not what you (or I) "considered notable." The issue is WP:N. EphBlog meets that standard. If you think it is a bad standard, then you should seek to change it, not delete this article. David.Kane (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - and I should say, I've got only the highest gratitude for the excellent contributions you've made to this debate, David.Kane, thank you! - but meeting WP:N only creates a presumption of notability. So something can meet WP:N and still, on its individual merits, not be notable. I'm arguing that that's the case here. It's a weak argument but not one entirely without worth. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DustFormsWords said it best. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources are independent as the discussion following his !vote shows. --Milowent (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If three small independent sources all write articles about the other two, that doesn't make any of them independently notable. That isn't exactly what's going on here, but that's the concept. Miami33139 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, whether the sources are "small" has nothing to do with the issue. Please read WP:N. Th sources must be reliable. We have established that they are. According to WP:N, there is no difference between an article in the Berkshire Eagle and an article in the New York Times. Both have equal standing as far as WP:N is concerned. (I admit that the standing of a college paper without a Wikipedia entry is more controversial.) Second, what does your hypothetical have to do with this case? We have three reliable sources, each of which has written about EphBlog on multiple occasions. Two of those sources have Wikipedia entries themselves! If they are reliable and independent, then what is the grounds for deletion? David.Kane (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced that this subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue should not be whether you (or I) think that EphBlog is "notable enough." The issue is: Does EphBlog meet WP:N? I think it does. What specific aspects of WP:N do you think it fails? David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I mean that the topic does not meet our notability guidelines. I don't care to be much more specific as I don't like how you're badgering editors whose opinion or judgment differs from your own. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! Not my intention to badger. Please WP:AGF. In some of my comments above, I was merely trying to correct some mistakes about whether or not, for example, The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript were reliable sources, whether or not they are independent and so on. I am sorry if that came across as badgering. But now that those questions are settled (I think!), I really don't understand which specific aspect of WP:N we are missing. Would it be helpful to the discussion if I were to go through the points one by one? I am happy to do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several of the local newspaper references fail validation. The blog is not mentioned as claimed. --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what "fail validation" means? It is true that, for some of them, you need access to view them, either via a library or some other method. But they still exist and mention EphBlog, as this | Google News search demonstrates. EphBlog is mentioned in every article. Is there a specific article you have questions about? David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources have been added to article (which do reference EphBlog, not sure what Alastair Rae is referring to), seems sufficiently notable, and !votes for deletion are highly subjective, so I can't say it should be deleted. --Milowent (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To establish that this blog is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, I think we need sources that are from beyond Williams College and its immediate surrounding area to discuss it (and that discussion needs to be more than a passing reference). This sounds like something that has gained some local notability, but is not notable in the wider world. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly correct that EphBlog is not "notable in the wider world." But WP:N does not require that. Indeed, if it did, tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages would need to be deleted! Recall the exact language of WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There is no requirement that a topic be notable at the state, national or international level. Local notability (with "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" is enough. David.Kane (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If local notability could never be enough, a majority of the local newspaper articles on wikipedia would be subject to deletion. This may be a slightly tougher case, though. I wonder, if EphBlog didn't have "blog" in its name if it would be faring better in this AfD, which isn't boding well for its survival.--Milowent (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't read the sources, but if that's all that can be gleaned from them, it's not enough. If someone can get a few hundred more words out of them, then I'd say keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: By "few hundred more words," you mean adding to the length/detail of the EphBlog entry using the information provided in those news stories? David.Kane (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on expansion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has sourcing from independent reliable sources. Subjective claims of "not notable enough" without reasoning are not persuasive.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reasoning behind those claims (or at least, my reasoning) is that, sources aside, a website dedicated entirely to the coverage of a single educational institution is inherently incapable of having the kind of cultural, professional, or academic impact necessary to be notable to any wider population than the parents and students of that institution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that EphBlog will never be "notable to any wider population than the parents and students of that institution" with the proviso that you include alumni, faculty, staff, and local residents. But, first, that is still around 30,000 people. Second, there is nothing in WP:N which references a concept like "wider population." The requirement is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It does not matter if only a few thousand people are interested in the subject. David.Kane (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As the main editor on this article, I have a few comments. First, many thanks for the comments and suggestions above. I have changed the article substantially over the last few days. Perhaps those who voted to delete might want to reconsider? Second, as part of this expansion, I have included many other sources that do not mention EphBlog specifically but do help to verify certain facts. An example is the footnote to the New York Times which confirms Professor Bean's denial of tenure. To be clear, that article does not mention EphBlog. (I did not want people to think that I was adding irrelevant sources in an attempt to confuse the issue.) EphBlog is only mentioned in three reliable sources and the coverage is only significant in some of those mentions. Third, I realize that many editors may not have access to the articles in The Berkshire Eagle and the North Adams Transcript. I now have copies of those articles. If you contact me, I will send them to you. Thanks again for all the feedback. David.Kane (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, Unfortunately, the sources you added do not help us in this debate. The issue here is whether a website named EphBlog is notable. To do this, we have to establish that reliable sources have discussed or substantially commented upon the website. The sources you have added establish that other sources discuss the same issues that EphBlog does... but that makes the issues notable, not the website. What you need are sources that talk about EphBlog. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at the sources? I can send you the articles if you do not have access. At least three are about EphBlog explicitly. Start with | this article from 5 years ago. Several feature extensive discussions about EphBlog, even if EphBlog itself is not the main topic. David.Kane (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, your link simply points me to the references list at the Wikipedia article. Was there a specific reference you wanted me to look at? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link I gave goes to the footnote to the Williams Record article "Ephblog provides alumni a medium for discussion," which is clearly about EphBlog itself. Now, obviously, this is just one article and there are some who dispute whether a college paper can be a reliable source. I can send you copies of the other articles if you like. I am happy to go through all the citations one-by-one, but this is the one to start with. David.Kane (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of WP:N and EphBlog

Given some of the above discussion, perhaps it would be useful to go through the criteria provided by WP:N and the relevant links with regard to EphBlog.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

As I argue above, I think that EphBlog meets this standard easily, but we need to look at the meaning of each of these terms.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Of the dozen or so articles that mention EphBlog (some of those mentions are "trivial"), there are at least 3 in which it is the main topic and another 6 in which the mention is significant. (If it would be helpful, I am happy to go through the sources one-by-one to illustrate this.)

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The three sources are The Berskshire Eagle, the North Adams Transcript and the Williams Record. The first two are clearly reliable sources. Indeed, the Eagle has won Pulitzer Prizes. The status of the Williams Record is somewhat less clear. It is a student-run college paper, so it is clearly less reliable then a professional paper. Still, Williams is leading liberal arts college and the Record is over 100 years old. I sought comments on this topic | here. I hesitate to summarize that discussion. My conclusion would be that, with regard to the facts that I have cited the Record for, it is a reliable source.

"Independent of the subject"''

I don't think that there is any debate that The Berskshire Eagle, the North Adams Transcript and the Williams Record are independent of EphBlog. As part of my additions to the article, I have added citations to EphBlog posts, but only as additional material. The substance of almost every single claim is backed up in a reliable source outside of EphBlog.

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.

For now, this is all that I seek to demonstrate, that there is a presumption that EphBlog is a reasonable article. At least two editors above disagree with that presumption. If we can reach consensus on all the claims above, we can move on to a discussion about that presumption. It is also useful to consider the Web content specific criteria for notability. It seems to me that the citations that I have provided (more than 3 from each of 3 different, independent reliable sources) more than meet criteria 1) "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Note also that none of my citations are in categories that specifically excepted in this Wikipedia generally accepted standard. David.Kane (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the sources, the only one that is about EphBlog is the article in the Williams Record. In the Birkshire Eagle and North Adams Transcript articles, EphBlog is often not mentioned at all or mentioned in passing. I see little evidence of that there is any significant coverage in other sources to establish the notability of the topic (ie EphBlog).

I will also note that User:David.Kane is likely to be the same David Kane that runs the webpage... No reason for him not to contribute... but please take the possibility of WP:COI into account. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, apologies for not making my involvement at EphBlog clear. Although I am not currently on the Board of Directors, I am heavily involved with the site, and with Williams College issues more generally. Feel free to consult my user history. Second, it is false to say that "EphBlog is often not mentioned at all" in the cited Eagle and Transcript articles. EphBlog is mentioned in virtually every one, as I have documented above. Third, just to specifically discuss the first two non-Record articles listed in the footnotes: 1) the "NBC probing Williams' admissions decision" is about EphBlog since NBC did all its probing on EphBlog, and 2) the "Williams College Environmental efforts met with mixed reactions" is about EphBlog since much of the "mixed reactions" are sourced to EphBlog. Now, of course, there is a spectrum of how much an article is "about" some specific subject. But please read WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In mo re than half of the articles cited, EphBlog is "more than a trivial mention." David.Kane (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you obviously have a very different conception of what constitutes "significant coverage" than I think is the norm. But I will let the closing admin decide which of us is correct. I stand by my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a WP:COI argument here runs the risk of dismissing an individual such as Rosa Parks, for sitting in the whites only section of a segregated bus, because she was self-interested and held a 'conflict of interest' "as a black." Rather, it is precisely David's position and POV that privileges him to forward the argument. KenThomas (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search shows it was mentioned in two books, plus Google Scholar search showed three results, it publishing something worthy of scholary attention it seems. The news results seem sufficient enough to warrant inclusion. If it has 30,000 readers, than its notable, obviously, that larger than some mainstream newspapers get these days. Dream Focus 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate the keep vote, honesty compels me to note that there are not really any mentions in Google Scholar. Those are just links to articles that have copies stored at EphBlog. (We used them in our annual January seminar.) The book mentions are real. David.Kane (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the book mentions are not real. they are just citing it as a reference: " "Sex Week was to take place from ... according to eph.blog. it is sponsored by the Womens Center of Williams College." is one, and "posted by the Big E on the thread ... (in ephBlog] " is the other. That's not evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ladies and gentlemen, a rather tedious discussion of WP:N and other criteria & hairsplitting and, forbid, "provincialism" seems to be going on here-- as if Wikipedia were not a rather odd and small province of the s world, with a rather peculiar point-of-view, despite all its protestations to the contrary. As a visitor, I am not necessarily interested in learning the inflections of your odd local dialectical rules such as WP:N.

Instead of trying to apply formal criteria and hair-split from there, one might ask a substantive, rational question and reason from there. One such question might be: given that Wikipedia has unlimited space, is it relatively likely that, in the future, some user or user of the encyclopedia might, coming upon this 'ephblog' or some reference to it, consult the encyclopedia in order to clarify what this 'ephblog', is-- and thereby find help in their search for knowledge? If the answer to the above is vaguely 'yes,' then we should abandon all other niggling criteria and opt for inclusion. Criteria, after all, are only guide signs along the way. So forwarded. KenThomas (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are many types of blogs, but a blog of this type is like a campus newspaper. The main campus newspaper at a university or important college is generally notable, and sometimes unofficial ones can be too. Whether this one is is borderline. Most of the evidence given is that it covers notable things, which of course doesn't indicate much--that it covers them particularly well, is something rather hard to prove. That is referred to as a source twice ibooks is not substantial coverage--not everything listed as a reference in a published book is notable. The NYT reference is to the event it covered, not to the blog. FWIW, I think they do a very good job of it. And as for the closing admin, his job is not to decide which view is correct. His job is to decide what the consensus here thinks is correct. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is --one-- definition of the closing admin's function; there are others. In this case, it is very obvious that consensus of the commenters is unlikely. In that case, is the closing admin willing to --force-- the opinion of a weak majority onto, and above the objections of, a strong minority? KenThomas (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant provincialism. - DonCalo (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page). Explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies" David.Kane (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is really nothing more to say: it is irrelevant and provincial, written by someone who thinks Willamstown is the centre of the world and a clear WP:COI. - DonCalo (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penso che la vostra ossessione con la mafia sia inoltre poco un provinciale, se non interessante. Che cosa di esso? But ephBlog's coverage is, actually, a little more wide-roaming; perhaps you have taken only a rather cursory look. KenThomas (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of purely local interest, with a lack of sources from outside Williamstown - many of the sources are the blog itself, which obviously breaches WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, assume for a second that the closing admin decides to keep the article. There are currently 34 footnotes. 9 are to EphBlog itself. Assume that I would like to make the article better. Should I delete those 9 footnotes? The vast majority of Wikipedia entries in the category have footnotes to the individual blogs that they are describing. Second, those 9 footnotes are not meant to demonstrate notability. They are only used to footnote more of the details that are in the article. Third, I agree (as I have said above) that EphBlog is of only limited interest. If you are not one of the 30,000 or so people who went to Williams, work at Williams, have children who attend Williams or live in the local area, you are unlikely to care. But there are hundreds of thousands of articles in Wikipedia of "purely local interest," which is why WP:N does not require more-than-local interest. David.Kane (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've noted a few of the comments leaning delete because EphBlog's fame is primarily local to western Massachusetts, and was wondering about that. To a great extent, the publications covered on Wikpedia are local in nature - they either appear to a niche interest audience, like, for example, the soon-to-fold Gourmet (magazine), or a geographically local audience, like northern Canada's Yellowknifer newspaper (circulation circa. 6000) or The Royal Gazette (Bermuda's sole newspaper). Because EphBlog primarily is directed to the residents of northwestern Massachusetts and the Williams community, and has been referenced by other publications in that area, what substantively makes it not good for inclusion as compared to the Yellowknifer or The Royal Gazette? (I presume some people would say they should go too, but local paper articles are legion here.) Is it, in the end, just a subjective feel? When does "local fame" because non-local enough to merit coverage. I was wondering what people think.--Milowent (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me the issue is the depth of coverage, even in local newspapers. We have the Williams Record (which, being a collegiate newspaper, is on the boarderline for reliability) and two local papers that do not really discuss the topic (EphBlog) in any depth. Yes they mention it, but usually in passing and in the context of discussing another topic. If a local paper did an article all about EphBlog, then I might consider the website to have "local notability". Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its another depth vs. number of references quandary, probably partially why, as KenThomas notes above, consensus is not developing. --Milowent (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have very carefully considered the article in its present well-developed state. I am forced to conclude that much of the claims to fame of EphBlog do not rise to even the level of local notability. It is used by local reporters to get a glimpse into the feelings of the students without having to do some on-campus interviews. The Wendy Shalit book source is a mere mention. There is no analysis in any secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Karad

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

assertion made of 'leader', but cannot find sources to back this up. Appears to be a candidate for the Maharashtra Assembly with no other notability, and thus to not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Prod removed by article's author. Saalstin (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Saalstin (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This AfD was missing Step 1, fixed now. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've run for an election and lost, I'm almost certainly not notable either. More to the point, WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Being generous enough to assume the "external links" are supposed to be sources for what's in the article, they're neither reliable, significant, or independent of the subject (one is a Wikipedia page, one is a blog, and the other is a mere statement acknowledging the fact that he's running). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with strings attached - As the leader of a major political party, he seems to satisfy notability. Needs better referencing, though. Without better referencing, it should be deleted. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, but the problem is, this claim doesn't need 'better' referencing, it needs any referencing - I searched, and couldn't find any evidence to back up the claim (as noted in the nom statement). Do you have any sources for it? --Saalstin (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I tried Google to no avail. I'm assuming the author would attempt to find some if he is interested in the article being kept, and there may be some in offline newspapers, books and such but I'm not gonna go to all that trouble. If nothing can be found it should be deleted. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify WP:Politician and is a local leader for a large political party and that isn't a claim to notability either. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Shellswell

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet relevant guidelines (either WP:BIO basic criteria or WP:ENT) No evidence of significant coverage: a few sources can be found, but they only refer to Shellswell as a presenter with no additional information. snigbrook (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to keep. Treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Sylvester

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination. Listed for almost 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, and no comments from other editors at all for the past 20 days. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Talbot

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that WP:ENTERTAINER is a more accurate category to use as a guideline as she is a television personality, not a journalist. She satisfies the criteria of having a significant role in multiple television shows (as a presenter for BBC North West Tonight and a co-anchor of Calendar as the most significant). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think ENTERTAINER applies to people who deal with journalism and news-related issues. ƒ(Δ)² 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here. ƒ(Δ)² 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, author also added Barthokia to List of sovereign states stating that it was real. Clear case of something made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barthokia

PROD removed by creator without comment or improvement. Fictional country/characters from a book that doesn't have an article by an author who doesn't have an article. In other words, fails notability in just about every way. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national schoolboy rugby union team

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

Non-notable players, these are school children and raise WP:BLP issues. Fails WP:GROUP and more importantly WP:ATHLETE. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. A noble cause, but begs the question; how it meets Notability standards versus any other secondary school sports team. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was an earlier discussion on a similar topic- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team. I will let others decide how relevant that is. However the nominator is right, this is just school sport, albeit at a national level. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team --Bob (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is very different to the other nomination. Usually I'm very pro-sport article, but the Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team is far more in depth than this one. It contains old notable players, tour information, records and is all properly referenced. This article is a bunch of kids names spread across a page, something you will not find on the Irish article. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 09:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not really an argument to delete, but an argument to fix the article. Articles should not typically be deleted based on their current state. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, unreferenced New seeker (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team. I'll have a crack at the "improve" part after work tonight if I have time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are worse national team articles than this and overtime this article should improve sss333 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If article is improved. Not notable at the moment, but other articles like this one have been improved and avoided AFD.--LAA Fan^sign _review 04:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both comments above are speculation towards improvement and is not a valid argument. See WP:NOTCRYSTAL for crystal balling. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while they may be speculative, there is a extremely high chance that if deleted this page will be re-created soon enough, not to mention there is also Australia A schoolboys team as well --sss333 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't see your point as a valid one. What you're saying is just because something has a chance to be recreated means an article is notable? If you are so passionate about keeping this article, improve it to make it notable now instead of saying "someone else will do it". My local rugby clubs premier league team has a B and C grade team. Does it make it notable? No! It doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ATH. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if article cannot be sufficiently improved to meet our standards for inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is a poor one in that it is not clear who they play or with what results, but this is a natiuoanl team at a junior level and presumably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Searching by the article's title got me so few results that I began to suspect that it is not the correct name. If one searches Google News by "Australian Schoolboys" rugby one gets 1,380 hits. I cannot imagine that all these News hits are somehow not about the national boys rugby team of Australia. Even if only 1% of these News articles are reliable sources on this particular institution, that is still 14 sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elgorithms MagicTracer

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

I can't find signfificant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAPO Codebits

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

Proposed for speedy deletion as non-notable; I declined but decided to pass this on to the AfD process for further consideration. Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zareh Akbar Bathenjani

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

Iranian Ministry article was PRODded in June 2008 for having no sources, PROD was subsequently removed. I too can find no sources confirming Zareh Akbar Bathenjani was the Minister of Agriculture from 1982 until 1984. However, there are sources which suggest that Mohammed Salamati held that position during 1982 and 1983. Google book preview for "The neglected garden: the politics and ecology of agriculture in Iran" by Keith Stanley McLachlan has the following quote: The drive to decentralization was strongly supported by Mohammed Salamati, who took over as Minister of Agriculture from Reza Esfahani in September 1980 and remained until a cabinet change in 1983. Other Google book snippet results from the time period, e.g. "The political economy of revolutionary Iran" dated 1983 and "Middle Eastern stability: analysis of political and economic risk for US" dated 1982, also mention Salamati as the minister.

Also, searches on "Salamati" in news archives, books, scholar, and the web with Iran ministry- or agriculture-related keywords all return several hits. Searches on "Bathenjani" with the same keywords return no hits except Wikipedia reprints. The article currently fails core content policy Verifiability, especially in light of conflicting evidence from printed sources. I recommend to Delete the article, and its associated redirect at Bathenjani, unless a reliable source can substantiate the content. Michael Devore (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually don't bother to to add a "per nom" statement, but in this case I will, because the nomination is exceptionally well researched and leads to a clear case for deletion. I would urge the closing admin, unless any valid arguments are made for keeping, not to make this a "no consensus" based on lack of numbers, as the nominator's argument is what should count, rather than how many "per noms" there are. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD G7 following deletion request from LonesomeMoon (and no other substantial edits made) — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antique 96

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither can I. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not one of Pizzicato Five main releases so it's OK if you delete this. The Japanese wiki has a sourced page on the album (ja:ANTIQUE 96) so if any one could translate that would be dandy. :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by LonesomeMoon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 October 2009

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sittercity.com

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

Non-notable website with thin and insubstantial coverage; created in good faith after an AFC request, but still fails WP:WEB Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: With plenty of news coverage and a few book mentions, I'm thinking that the site makes the cut. The article as it is now, though, needs a complete overhaul to stop being a press release. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Durani

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

Prod was removed by editor who was hoping that with some time would come some improvement; it hasn't come. Subject does not meet our notability guidelines. References provided are unverifiable (for reasons which are obvious if you look at them), and in Google News all I found was this, a letter to the editor of The Sacramento Bee--LexisNexis and Newspaper Source do not provide the text of that letter. No hits for our subject in Google Books or Google Scholar.

The article, as we have it now, is more like a vanity piece than an article, and given the non-notability of the subject should be deleted from Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's all very admirable what he is trying to do, but there has been no coverage about him or his activities in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW -- There are sixteen references to him on "site:unlv.edu" -- University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He made the Dean's list several years in a row. No, I am not suggesting that this alone would make him notable, even if he were the first nuclear engineer from his country. It shows this is not a hoax article however, if anyone was wondering. Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources at all, aside from a couple of letters to the editor of the Sacramento Bee. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Tribal Environmental Council

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

It is not clear to me that this organization meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this page as a project for my class Cultures of Dissent: The American Indian Experience. I have been trying to find sources other than the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council's home page, but I have not found many. Sovereignty2013 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the above comment from this AfD's talk page to here, a more visible location. JamieS93 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprised that this article was nominated for deletion. The ITEC has 41 member tribes in three states and has been an important force in environmental clean-up (air, water, old mining sites, etc.) in Indian Country in the SW. There's newspaper and some books references available as sources.-Uyvsdi (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a Tribal Environmental Professional in Minnesota, I can personally say that even here in Minnesota, we work closely with ITEC, as their expertise is accessed not only in Oklahoma, but also in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Together with National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC)/National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)(Albaquerque, NM), Northern Arizona Universyty (NAU)/Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP)(Flagstaff, AZ), US EPA/Tribal Air Monitoring (TAMS) Center (Las Vegas, NV), environmental programs of Inter-tribal Council of Michigan (ITCM)(Sault Ste. Marie, MI) and the Tribal Air Quality Program (TAQP) of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)(Phoenix, AZ), ITEC provides core environmental protection support across all of Indian Country in the United States. CJLippert (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the news and book mentions linked above, this topic meets the criteria for inclusion. The article itself needs to have more of these sources incorporated as footnotes, but it looks like work is being done to fix that. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Charles Agyin-Asare

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

The article's subject "is an apostle of God to the world; a teacher of the gospel to the nations; a prophet to both the world’s rich and poor..." - sorry, but that's a huge red flag for me scanning uncategorized articles. I don't care to read the whole thing but someone needs to check on the notability, and if he is notable, please clean up the introduction and provide references. Chutznik (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't care too much for this nomination (which seems unaware of (WP:BEFORE), but I do agree that the subject is not notable--a Google News search finds this, and the hits that I looked at turned out not to pass muster--they are press releases or based on press releases, or they are in sources that aren't all that reliable. The facts claimed in the article would be notable enough, but I have not seen proof of their actuality. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know little of his church, but the extent to which he has been honoured (if true) and the title as "bishop" suggests that he is notable. As an ecclesiastic in Ghana, the lack of Ghits may not be surprising. However the article needs toning down, there is a tag for this, but I forget what it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article could definitely be sourced better, and it has some serious tone issues (which I tagged it for), but someone from Ghana isn't likely to produce as many Ghits as someone from the West anyway, and there do seem to be some sources to indicate notability. It would help if someone could actually source the honors in the article, but this seems notable enough to be kept. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if revised to eliminate the over-personal unencyclopedic detail & the unsourced opinion. We cannot say, for example "In 1987, by divine instruction, Agyin-Asare started a church" , much less "After the commission, he went round the cities and towns, holding miracle campaigns and schools of ministry for leaders and church workers. His gospel campaigns have recorded over 100,000 in a single night, where multitudes of sick and maimed have received their healing." I know AfD is not a place to discuss article improvements, but this is a case of a radically unsatisfactory article, so promotional as to be close to G11 and to give strong indications of copyvio. The title of "bishop" is notable for churches with a territorial organization, not for everyone who is called by that title. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming the article's assertions are verifiable, he's notable both for his direct works and for the honours and awards bestowed on him. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hughes

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Yes, he was in a lot of things, but his roles were almost entirely uncredited extras for films and single-episode appearances for TV stuff. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that his roles were "almost entirely uncredited extras...". In fact the vast majority of his eighty-four known roles were credited. Just as a single case, just his role opposite Rosalind Russell in the very famous film "Mame", by itself would merit an article on him. His role as the Satan-like figure in "The Howling Man" is one of the most-viewed episodes. While I agree that no one has expanded the article beyond a stub, there is plenty of material with which a person might do so. Just that no one has, is not in my mind, grounds for deletion. A decent article could be created simply by re-noting his appearances from IMDb in some sort of textual flow. Wjhonson (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because IMDB is not considered a reliable source per WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is false. IMDb is not mentioned at WP:BIO Wjhonson (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, either you misunderstood or I didn't make myself clear. IMDB is not considered a reliable source as required by WP:BIO. This is because IMDB is made up mostly of self-published or user-submitted information; it isn't reliable for the same reason that Wikipedia isn't reliable. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you, and your remark was clear. However it's not accurate. IMDb is not mostly made up of self-published or user-submit information. Secondly we have no requirement in WP:BIO stating anything like what you said above, in the first place. In fact the word "user" or "user-" isn't even in that guideline. Thirdly we do in fact allow, and even encourage self-published information, see WP:RS.Wjhonson (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not saying it's in WP:BIO, I'm saying it's in WP:RS. The general acceptability of IMDB has been disputed for quite a while, as this demonstrates; if you can show that the information was not written and submitted by average joe I'd be happy to include it as a reference. Given that it's a reasonable possibility the burden is on you to show that it's false. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] The claim that "it's in WP:RS is false. That policy does not mention IMDb. Your link to Citing IMDb is simply another failed proposal. The community stated that the proposal is rejected. Therefore it has no weight whatsoever in this discussion.Wjhonson (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is not a second nomination. This Robin Hughes, is a completely different person from the prior Robin Hughes. They just happen to share the same name.Wjhonson (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A hard call, because the name is common, and tracking down refs for B-list 1950s/60s actors isn't easy, and almost all the Google News search results that turn up are behind pay walls. But there's one very clear signal that he was a recognizable name of the time -- relatively extensive coverage (multiple articles) regarding a paternity suit against him --and enough movie reviews and listings turning up in the news search showing a moderately long list of credited roles in multiple films, enough to satisfy the "multiple" requirement of WP:ENT, and undermine the nominator's claim that his movie career was "almost entirely uncredited roles. And the Twilight Zone episodes is one of the series' most famous, based on a story that's regarded as a classic in its genre. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep. He has a reasonable number of credits in some well-known films, some good (Auntie Mame, Dial M for Murder, The Flame and the Arrow) and some hilariously bad (The Thing That Couldn't Die, The Mole People). Plus how could you delete someone who has played both Satan ("The Howling Man") and the voice of Christ (Quo Vadis)? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Liberal. NW (Talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberals

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

Non-notability. There appears to be no independent information on this group, nor can I find any media references (even trivial ones) to them. There's simply no evidence that this group exists, and if they do, no evidence that I can see which suggests that it's anything other than a small group of like-minded friends, not as a group worthy of a Wikipedia article. See page's discussion page for full story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpidge (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if deleted this should redirect to Liberal 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if kept, this should be renamed to The Liberals (Ireland) and the prime name should redirect to Liberal. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was privileged enough to join the LYMEC team campaigning with the Liberals in Dublin over the Lisbon treaty. They have been getting more and more attention and I'm sure you'll be seeing more of them in the future. I raise one trivial blog post mentioning them Rbrown115 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mainstream media sources whatsoever. Completely non-notable and self-generated content. If they do start getting more attention, we can always re-instate the article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pack-Track

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

WP:COMPANY not met. Page created by company's founder. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition; all the Ghits I found are about the founder Andrew Streeter, not the company itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Further reading" has next to nothing to say about the company. No disinterested editors seem to actually be adding content. --JamesAM (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the keep comments are more numerous, thay are not based on any policy, while the delete comments have a well-grounded policy basis. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Henderson

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to fit criteria for "minimal notability" compared to other similar entries. Vermiculite (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — Vermiculite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I'm assuming the notation that I've made few other edits/comments is meaningful, so to be clear: I'm the page creator, it's my first page, and I decided to make it because I saw Samantha Henderson noted in a variety of places where I was performing other edits. Ultimately, every editor has to start somewhere, and I would just like to iterate that though I am new, I'm not a schill, I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter (I do not know the author personally, and we are not friends), and I do feel that this is relevant material. Short story authors seem to get short shrift on the notability side of things, as well, when in fact, it is frequently more difficult to get a short story published than it is a novel (and novels still aren't easy to get published), and the 20,000 people who read, say, Asimov's or Realms of Fantasy is a higher number than the people who would buy a mass market paperback novel (typically, 5,000-15,000 would be a good pull there). Further, there are pages for less notable people that were given a pass, and while I have spent enough time around Wikipedia to know that consistency is impossible with so many people involved, I would like to state that it is clear to anyone in the science fiction community that Samantha Henderson's achievement is far beyond those others. Finally, I am comfortable with moving this to my sandbox until such time as the author's notability is ironclad, but I would like to hear from the detractors on these issues. Vermiculite (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samantha Henderson is an extremely talented up and coming author and the entry meets "minimal notability" criteria. Inkbabies (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — Inkbabies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This was this user's second edit, the first being at Talk:Samantha Henderson. [26] Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Being an "up and coming author" is the sort of argument that WP:CRYSTAL is designed to to cut off at the pass -- she needs to have arrived to be notable. Whether she has, is what we're here to debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is collecting the reviews of her book helpful to this? 141.211.172.117 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. If you can source the article, you're welcome. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article is deleted, it will just have to be reinstated; this writer's career has begun to accelerate. An announcement of her inclusion in an important invitational (only selected professionals) anthology was just going out all over the science fiction world yesterday. Link here: http://norilanabooks.livejournal.com/75597.html 75.80.113.223 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) — 75.80.113.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by my understanding of sf notability, this isnt quite there. the publishers listed are not top rank (roc, ace, bantam, etc), and only one novel. lots of the material in the article is utterly nonnotable. easy enough to copy to a sandbox, trim back, and just wait for more notability, even if its only months from now (second novel, interview in Locus, film actually made). we go on notability right now or in the past, not future, even for sf.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per above, I object to the notion that novels are more meaningful than a record of high quality short story publication, particularly in regards to number of readers and meaning of the achievement. However, your comment is pretty hilarious, nonetheless. ("we go on notability right now or in the past, not future, even for sf.") Vermiculite (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Manios

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

Non-notable candidate in 2003 Ontario election. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Recommend delete or redirect to Liberal Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually be redirected to the page for Independent candidates, since he wasn't an official Liberal candidate. With that said, I don't have a strong preference as to whether it should be moved or kept as a standalone article. CJCurrie (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Liberal Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. PK T(alk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Liberal Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Although he was denied the opportunity to be the official Liberal candidate, he was a Liberal Party member and nevertheless ran as an independent Liberal. The controversy in that would be best discussed in the context of the article of the Liberal candidates of the election. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings SML Basketball

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

Basketball team in non-notable "social league" (see prior version). Google returns nothing about the league. CSD rejected Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced vanity article, no real claim to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverge in 3rd party sources, I dont see this meeting notability guidelines based on whats out there now RadioFan (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vendio Services

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Rd232 ^talk 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a third party ecommerce solution provider that helps online sellers manager their business across multiple online channels. More typical managering spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Ihcoyc said, its spammy. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ITV News Channel. Per Ron Ritzman; relisted twice with only one !vote and no argument for deletion aside from the nominator. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Siraj

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Tagged as a BLP requiring sources since June 2008. ƒ(Δ)² 09:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ITV News Channel as an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Goodwin

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to STV News at Six as an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure even a redirect is supported. The original version of this article, equally as without sources as the current one, pointed to a completely different television programme. I cannot find anything anywhere that documents this person's life and works, even a source which reliably states up-to-date information as to which television programme this person is currently associated with, and thus which article would be the proper redirect target. The only thing that I've found is a fluff piece in a gossip column about how this person was proposed to. Even that doesn't state the television programme. The world has simply not documented this person. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G, no opinions on redirecting. GlassCobra 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Youssry

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

This author does not have anything published in a book, but only in web content. I think this article fails A7. LAA Fan^sign _review 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR--TM 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wikipedia's standards Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom is incorrect though, the author does have a book published in Arabic this and has in fact won some sort of award (Arabic source). But there are hardly any usable sources on her that I can find in either English or Arabic. She is mentioned in a couple for performing some poetry at a cultural festival but nothing about her that I can find. nableezy - 02:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Wood (journalist)

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since he is apparently a television personality, WP:ENT may be relevant: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He seems from the article to have appeared on multiple shows, including currently as an anchor, which may satissfy this. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a journalist, and his acting career seems to consist of two trivial roles only. [27] DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Vincent

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't feel as strongly about this one as I do about Felicity Barr (another deletion request today), but I know who he is, he was a familiar face on TV during the last World Cup, and I certainly think he warrants inclusion. Tris2000 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to the discussion here. ƒ(Δ)² 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A newscaster for a major national network. And doing a google news search I see his work as been featured prominently on CNN and PBS. --Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Not enough published about the subject to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News reporter whose reports are broadcast nationally and sometimes internationally. RMHED 23:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llewela Bailey

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bath (presenter)

{

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Additionally, the article is pure nonsense such as "soon he was setting alight to Bradfor's Stadium and planting huge stores of Gasoline at Wimbledon's Plough Lane to get hard hitting stories, his bosses were oh-so-proud." raising strong WP:BLP issues. ƒ(Δ)² 08:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is full of nonsense, clearly a hoax. LOL has a huge fanbase in Andorra. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is real enough, someone has been playing in the article. No idea on notability of news readers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any sources that he actually exists? I would like to attempt to work on the article, but can't find sources that I know refer to him specifically (his name is quite generic). --Pink Bull (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [28] would probably not be deemed a reliable source, of that list though I would say that he is in the upper half on the 'fame' scale. ITV's own website has nothing on their news presenters at the moment. I'm sure that he has read the national news, which is where I recognised him from. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unscientific and not counting 'OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' etc. I did a little survey, of that list of 33 TV personalities, 18 of them have WP articles (including Richard Bath), of the missing ones nine get mentioned in programme articles. Some with articles appear to be regional only (certainly some I've not heard of before, I'm in Central England BTW). Mr Bath being a national and international (BBC world service from one of the images) newsreader seems to be at the more notable end of the scale. Leaning towards 'keep'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I think a presenter on a notable show would pass WP:CREATIVE #4 or WP:ENT #1, though I have little experience with these particular guidelines. His show Westcountry Live is apparently notable enough for Wikipedia at any rate. Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial coverage, barely can verify that he exists; "newsreader" in the most transparent of senses (hey, my Macintosh can read the news to you!) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:SOURCES.--LAA Fan 04:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bevir

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ITV Tyne Tees & Border or delete. Article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meridian Tonight. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator so this is a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. However, the article is unsourced so I'm redirecting per WP:BLP. Please don't restore without sourcing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Bhabra

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faylo

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

Non-notable surname. I have searched for sources, but have been unable to verify the information in the article. This article cannot be turned into a disambiguation page because no Wikipedia articles contain this name. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Speedy! Hoax!) Come on Cunard, I asked for a challenge, not for an obvious example of bullshit. Even if this information were true, an obituary from a Toledo paper (ProQuest listed the name in an article, but not the rest of the obit--yeah, I looked it up) is not an authority on any linguistic matters. Besides, Paul Faylo is a WW2 veteran; perhaps the editor who came up with this crap can explain how Faylo changed his name when, as one would imagine, he was a grown man. User:Yeshua Ka-Kalei Asa-Faylo, please clarify your sources, or look like a you-know-what. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this some sort of a hoax? JBsupreme (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here suggests that this surname is notable, and nothing here is verifiable except possibly the fact that one non-notable person changed his surname to this name, although I haven't actually been able to verify that yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Savage (American band)

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

Ok, looking at Lexis and Westlaw, this is the best I could find. In the end, it's still a band that had one hit song on the import charts over 20 years. I don't think this passes WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 'UK Import Chart' was a chart published in Kerrang magazine, and had no official status. I couldn't find a single source to back up the claim either, other than a claim by the band's singer in an interview. This is the only thing I found that verges on significant coverage in a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google News archives, and also searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage. charting is not an official national chart. no coverage of touring shown. no other notability suggested. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Counting 2 of the keep opinions as coming from one editor Kevin (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lighthart

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

What...WP:NOTABLE? Fails WP:BIO... BrianY (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' - appears to be a rather complicated bit of a self-promotion for the novel "The Manufactured Identity". The cited news sources as far as I can tell are either self-published or "in on the joke". I may be wrong but if so it would help if the article were re-written to be less like a short story and more like an encyclopaedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - I overheard a professor saying this case is going to be the standard example of dissocialize amnesia he will be using in his classes for years to come. I came here looking for more info. I do think this article has merit but I agree it should be reformatted to be more like a normal bio article. - Rich83202 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - As a psychological enthusiast and a sometimes lecturer of social work, mental health, psychology, counseling, I felt compelled to create this article as Mr. Lighthart's case is currently the most notable instance of dissociative amnesia on record. It is not meant as a promotion of the fiction novel The Manufactured Identity, and far from self-published references, most of the article references are from primary media sources, such as The Seattle Times or other newspapers. Finally, the controversial pieces, of which the primary one has been the parrallels between the Dr. Sommer novel, is important as this case has yet to be without controversy, and given that 50% of such cases of dissociative amnesia are characterized by those faking the disorder, I felt it necessary in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality doctrine to include the primary counter argument against Mr. Lighthart's veracity, although I am of the opinion he is most likely not faking. regards for your allowing these thoughts Rstero (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC) — Rstero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The two 'keeps' above are the creator of the article, and the creator of a not yet released article on the author of the book referred to. There seems to be a fair bit of media attention, but I wonder how long this will last. Doesn't seem to have the potential of a Kaspar Hauser. I am rather suspicious about the parallels with the novel (as reported - I haven't read it and probably won't), regarding activities like this coming at the time of a book's release as more than coincidental. Peridon (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – based on the following coverage by 3rd party – creditable and verifiable sources [29]. An argument could be made to delete based on One Event. However, in light of reading the articles listed above and the two other keep opinions. I can see a case being made that Mr. Lighthart will be the subject and focal point of further study with regards to dissociative amnesia in scholarly works. Regarding the association with the just released novel “The Manufactured Identity” is supposition at best. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to assess, but the sources are so strange. If kept, the article needs a lot of work (e.g., stock for sock). Racepacket (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked in the sources, I get a distinct whiff of self-promotion. It is interesting that apart from the two keeps at the top, no-one in the field has come forward to confirm that either the book or the subject of the article are going to be the definitive examples, or even that they are going to be used in any way at all. A single event in the life of someone who may have been around but is not particularly notable to my reading of things. Not even for managing to get $600 into a sock along with a foot. 6 x $100s maybe. Otherwise, uncomfortable... The novel itself doesn't appear to have been considered worth an article, so a possible emulation of it rather fails to be notable too. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Check the piece now. I rewrote - wikified - added better references and categorized. Hope it helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tidier, yes. Increase in notability, no. Blog comments and readers' comments on a newspaper page don't take this beyond a one day minor (very) sensation. Still looks like a promotional stunt to me. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got references, but it's full of "thought-to-have-been's" and similar. If there's nothing certain to be said, why say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.120.186 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Warner

AfDs for this article:

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

NDP candidate in 2003 election. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for WP:BIO. Recommend delete or at least redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Google search and news reveals very little about this person. Doesn't achieve anything close to notability. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. She doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. PK T(alk) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election where her candidacy can be discussed in context of other candidates. She is not notable outside this event. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins the nomination in Beaches--East York (and she is currently the only public candidate), a riding which the NDP holds provincially, she has an excellent chance of being elected an MP. If this article is deleted, it would be a plausible candidate for re-insertion after that nomination meeting. The meeting is to be called this week, so it should be held within a month. Wait and see before considering deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Day (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Better to redirect rather than predict future events. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Wilson

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost a A7 speedy, but there is the barest hint of an assertion of notability. Decently written article; would be great if Kaleb would contribute elsewhere on the project, but notability really doesn't seem to be established. No sources (myspace doesn't count) and the future project isn't named (see WP:CRYSTAL) and hasn't been released, so it really can't contribute to notability at this time. Frank | talk 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Kaleb actually achieves some sort of notability. The article stating most known as the Executive Marketing Assistant for a film kind of says it all. Unsourced and currently unsourcable. Not enough yet, Kaleb... not enough yet. Searching as did the nom, I cannot find notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article inadvertently asserts non-notability by claiming that the subject is best known as an executive marketing assistant for an obscure movie. The position of executive marketing assistant is not a prominent one in the film industry and it would be virtually impossible to achieve notability by working in that job. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. COI wishful thinking. See also User:Obi-WanKenobi-2005/Kaleb Wilson, [30] and [31]. Time for a sockpuppet investigation (that includes User:BWMSDogs)? Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obi-WanKenobi-2005. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person has almost no notability, and only source of reference is this person's myspace profile. Article also reads almost like an A7 by asserting the person's interests when he has only been involved with one small movie.--LAA Fan^sign _review 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until such a time as we open WikiProject: Executive Marketing Assistants. Sorry kido, keep at it :0) --Whoosit (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was not a very well-written article, but still a valid one. DS (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thetextpage

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

Appears to be spam for advertising-based web site; page was nominated for CSD and denied mhking (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though weakly. The articles from The Guardian and the BBC, plus a few other minor references suffice, in my opinion, to make the subject pass GNG. Having said that, the article is a pretty bad piece of peacocky fluff and needs an editor's blunt ax. I'll be happy to do it, once the AfD closes (if it's a keep, that is). Drmies (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps Drmies should go ahead and improve the article now.. could lead to more Keep votes. The article is in a sorry state at the moment. GlassCobra 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I read the article about thetextpage in The independent. Numerous articles about the website and the creator can be found on google, so it has a right to a wiki page. however the article is not written very well but this is a KEEPer for sure. I think MHking just doesn't like the fact this boy has made money from nothing! hahah KEEP KEEP KEEP 05/10/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.1.77 (talk • contribs) — 62.133.1.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broncho

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of it before and can't find anything with google.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Klatt

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

Teacher only known for being accused of having sex with a 16-year-old pupil. Coverage of the case was minimal and only in local press:[32] Fails WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Fences&Windows 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after setting aside her background info, this is a single event with minimal consequences, article doesnt explain why this is notable among other cases of this type. newsworthy, yes, but no sign that it stands out as unique, or in getting undue attention, or in starting some movement or series of other events.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails everything. Coverage is not significant. Location (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. Really? What's next, the reincarnation of the Brian Peppers article? No thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual and event does not pass WP:GNG or WP:N/CA as she has not “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Nom is correct is that coverage was only in local press. WP:BLP1E does not apply as the event itself is not notable. Therefore, discussion of article name does not need to be addressed. Nolamgm (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak coverage, event not peculiar, WP:BLP1E. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ship

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

Doesn't satisfy criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE, which covers journalists. Also, no coverage by reliable third party sources. ƒ(Δ)² 14:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Lee

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

Doesn't satisfy criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which covers journalists). ƒ(Δ)² 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, it doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Nirmal Deshpande (5 October 2004). "Ephblog provides alumni a medium for discussion". Williams Record. Retrieved 29 September 2009.
^ Jeremy Goldstein (2 May 2007). "Ephblog discussion sparks legal action". Williams Record. Retrieved 29 September 2009.
^ Bonnie Obremski (24 June 2007). "Williams College Environmental efforts met with mixed reactions". The Berkshire Eagle. Retrieved 30 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1] Nirmal Deshpande (5 October 2004). "Ephblog provides alumni a medium for discussion". Williams Record. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

[2] Jeremy Goldstein (2 May 2007). "Ephblog discussion sparks legal action". Williams Record. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

[3] Bonnie Obremski (24 June 2007). "Williams College Environmental efforts met with mixed reactions". The Berkshire Eagle. Retrieved 30 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]