Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 9

< 8 October	10 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tontines in popular culture

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

Trivial listcruft at best. Articles like this are just dumping grounds, to help the main article be "clean" of trivia. If any are notable: put them in the main article and keep an eye on the article so it doesn't bloat. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or else merge back to main article. It does no harm. If people are interested in the topic they can check out the list, if not ignore it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to a few notable and well-sourced examples in the main tontine article, but this is pure trivia and unsourced trivia at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back with Tontine. The list is not so long that splitting it out was necessary, however the fact that this is a fairly common plot element deserves a fair bit of coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a big block of trivia. I fail to see how adding trivia to the tontines article improves it. And that's doubly true when it's unsourced trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Andrew Lenahan, maybe the main Tontine article would benefit from a few properly sourced examples, chosen discriminately. But this list needs to go. It is an indiscriminate dumping ground of unsourced trivia- which is what "List of whatevers in popular culture" invariably are. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Vella

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

No evidence able to be found that he's had any significant coverage in reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent sources to confirm notability (either WP:GNG or WP:ENT).--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karsin(novel)

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

Prod declined. AFD filed by IP who couldn't finish. Reads very spammy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NB and WP:CRYSTAL--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Google returns exactly one result for the author and the title: the Wikipedia article. 28bytes (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or a book that hasn't even been published yet. Non-notable either way. JIP | Talk 07:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lad probably has written or thinks he is going to write a book, but there is no evidence of publication and it fails WP:Notability (books) by a mile. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book and possible hoax, google shows no results. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to advertise the story you hope to write some day. Edward321 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any evidence for it being a hoax, as such, but it's definitely non-notable. --Korruski^Talk 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, there's probably a case for a speedy delete on the basis of WP:SNOW here, to be honest. Might be the kindest thing? --Korruski^Talk 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to pseudoreplication. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N = 1 fallacy

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Essentially original research with conflict of interest (see talk page and article creator) and zero evidence of notability. Concept originally published in a paper related to malaria in 2003, could not find a single independent source after that date. The article in question has been cited 30 times according to google scholar, but only in malaria articles (high citation field it appears), I see no evidence that the "n=1 fallacy" has been used seriously outside its original article (zero true positive hits in search engines). Boffob (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a rediscovery of a well known statistical issue with a new name. pseudoreplication generally encompasses this issue. I'd say unless (until?) the meme catches on the the secondary literature with this name, this does not meet the notability guidelines. I'd propose changing it to a redirect to pseudoreplication. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "original research" in the sense intended in Wikipedia's OR policy, since it was published in a refereed journal before it appeared in Wikipedia. Conflict of interest seems like a relatively minor issue that shouldn't be considered automatically fatal. I remember thinking the article was unclearly written. In such cases, ideally one would judge its merits after that problem has been corrected. Maybe if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll look at the published article within the next few days and see if I can clarify the article after that. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue with it being original research is that it's the authors of the paper who made the wiki article (there was a "copyright" issue because at first it was apparently a direct copy of the published material), and that there is no evidence of notability. You can't use Wikipedia to promote your own papers that were accepted in refereed journals. If it was indeed notable, "n=1 fallacy" would have appeared elsewhere in reliable sources and picked up by other scholars, in contexts outside of malaria. I find no evidence of that whatsoever.--Boffob (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to original research, but you seem to have misunderstood it. If says:

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.

That's what "original research" means according to Wikipedia's policy on it. It means research published originally within Wikipedia. That's not what this is; it was published first by a refereed scholarly journal. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I counted it as OR because the authors are the ones who created the article. It might be debatably within the OR guidelines because it was published first elsewhere, but it is not within the guidelines with respect to notability (and notability is the main concern when it comes to deletion) and advertizing of the authors' own research. --Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unclear, and I'm wondering if someone here might be able to help clarify it. It looks as if the fallacy they're writing about may be the same thing as confounding? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think 0¹⁸ is right, it seems to be pseudoreplication under another name. Now that article, though it could use more sources, is much easier to read.--Boffob (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the article seems to define the topic as pseudoreplication, but much of the explanation and the final example seem to be about a particular form of quasi-experiment. A very muddled piece of work. The original source is a little clearer, although the example is essentially identical, and it does appear that pseudoreplication is what's meant. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pseudoreplication. The presentation here is sufficiently unclear that merging it would be a bad idea, unless it is reworked substantially along the way. --Avenue (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge. The N = 1 fallacy article at least has the advantage of having several references (which could reasonably be retained) while pseudoreplication has only one. Plus it at least has some meaningful context rather than the entirely dry theoretical stuff in pseudoreplication. In addition, N = 1 fallacy has two articles making "real" links to it, while pseudoreplication has none, so presumably some people have thought is contains something useful. And there is the question of categories ...it seems important that Category:Misuse of statistics be retained, and possibly some of the others: at present there is no overlap of categories at all. Melcombe (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SMERGE to pseudoreplication. Presently, the two articles are on the same topic with no distinguishing features. I prefer the pseudoreplication name better, but have no strong preference. -Atmoz (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad's TV shows spoofs

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

Listcruft, non-encyclopedic —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what policy says we shouldn't have a list of Mad's TV spoofs when we have lists of almost everything else in American pop culture. (I wonder if Mad is going to do a spoof on Wikipedia.) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO; Steve should prolly read WP:OSE. The fact that other similar lists exist is immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article begins with a four paragraph critical analysis of the spoofs this notable satiric magazine has been running for roughly half a century. Perhaps the magazine will publish a parody of AfD debates on Wikisnobia some day. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as subarticle under Mad_(magazine). The article begins with four paragraphs of original research, so those gotta go. Which would leave "A list of X." The list by itself is not notable. However, the magazine is itself notable, so in the context of the magazine, its history, and its take on pop culture over the last 50+ years, the list of spoofs is notable, but only in that context. So, redirect the list as a subarticle under Mad_(magazine). That's my !vote. Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only information this article adds to the links to the TV shows is their spoof name. The article could just as well be List of TV shows. JIP | Talk 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eman El-Asy

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

Actress fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Derild 49 21 ☼ 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is Egyptian. Google News search for the transcription of her name gives you remarkable number of articles. I checked some with the help of G-translator and I guess she is quite well known in Egypt. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be pedantic, the searches at the top of the article are for one of the possible transcriptions of the subject's name. The searches that you linked are for the untranscribed name. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my confusional comment, Phil. We need people who can read/translate this language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources are added. This happens to be an unreferenced BLP, which can be deleted through a process other than AFD. If sources are added, then I would suggest keep. --Slon02 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found some English-language sources using different spellings such as "Eman Al Assi", "Eman Al Asi" and "Iman El-Asi". There are countless other possible transliterations. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Phil Bridger. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Relisting so that newly found sources can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's excellent source detection. By the way, she has a bare-bones IMDb page under the spelling Eman El-Assy.[1] (I am mentioning that as a matter of information, not an argument for notability.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Gospel Music Award

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

no notability shown for these awards. awards are for Australian Gospel Music Association also at afd. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with entry below or Delete if entry below is deleted I think that this has one or two hits from not questionable but not exactly stellar sources. More hits than the organization that distributes the awards, for sure (math: 2 > 0). That being said, if a merge were to happen, I would move this into the other article. For the record, I am voting delete on the other article, and it would appear both will be deleted if nothing changes in the next few days. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Because the organization to which Sven Manguard referred was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Gospel Music Association, this award can be deleted as well. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Gospel Music Association

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

no notability shown for this association. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:org. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically perhaps, the award it gives out has more legitimate hits than the organization itself. That being said, I couldn't find significant coverage with a simple Google search. That means it fails the test. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit, hardly any coverage [2]. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Thoughts

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

non notable book. Article creator claims a world record but nothing to back this up. No independent sources. noq (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's page, Masiela Lusha. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I can't find anything to establish notability, and the title is generic enough that a redirect would not be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't seem notable to me either. NZ forever (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem very notable, can't find any significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masiela Lusha. The "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 09:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking the Moon

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

Non notable book. Article consists of just a list of poems with nothing else. sources provided are to the authors own website and a self publishing company. noq (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book is inherently notable because of the notability of its writer. Once you do some research on other poetry articles you will see that that all anthology collections have a list of poems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC) more resources related to the book: http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/masiela-lusha http://reelladies.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/reel-lady-masiela-lusha/ http://www.thestarscoop.com/interviews/masiela-lusha-exclusive-interview/ http://www.amazon.com/Drinking-Moon-Masiela-Lusha/dp/0805971084 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) — PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your references just show the existence not the notability of the book. Please read WP:BK for the appropriate notability guidelines. noq (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Books are not inherently notable because of who wrote them, like everything else they need significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. #5 is similar to what you are saying, but I do not believe Masiela Lusha meets that description. So I would say that this book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and also fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. If I am missing something let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's article, Masiela Lusha. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masiela Lusha. I can't find sufficient reliable sources to establish independent notability here. 28bytes (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It illustrates what Masiela Lusha is writing about. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shows what Masiela Lusha is writing about. Google search = topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comnment Another google search shows nothing of value. Your search includes more general discussion of Lusha. noq (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Celebrity vanity projects lack independent notability. There's no article on Terry Bradshaw's album of Christmas songs, or Art Garfunkel's book of "prose poems". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masiela Lusha per the lack of reliable sources that give Drinking the Moon more than one or two tangential mentions. I concur with Noq (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources posted by PeterRoyce (talk · contribs), in that none of the sources significantly discuss Drinking the Moon. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treworgey tree fayre

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

Not notable event- could not find sources to determine notability, fails WP:EVENT. Slon02 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the event hasn't ben held since 1989 the internet content concerning this article is obviously sparse. There are, however notable sources referring to this event.^[1] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources besides that? --Slon02 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information on Treworgey Tree Fayre on the following site but it is notable enough to have been included on a ratings system with it's own dedicated page.^[2] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This festival is also relevant to the band Hawkwind and I will see that it is referenced in on their Wikipedia page. Their set was filmed at the festival and is readily available on DVD^[3] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festival already referenced on the Hawkwind Page here --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a NN festival held once 21 years ago. We do not categorise performers by performance, and I do not think we only exceptionally have articles on individual concerts. However, that is what this article seeks to be. I might have suggested merging a summary to a nearby place (which?), but I doubt it is even worth that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 02:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:MUSIC. Edison (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty

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

This page is redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation, which contains information about Europe and has a better title. The page List of countries by statehood was also redundant, but is at this moment a redirect to aforementioned article. This page also fails WP:V, using almost no sources and those it does cite wrongly. (It cites the CIA World Factbook about San Marino, but the sources does not say that Sammarinese independence dates from 301.) The deletion rationale is this: questions of statehood and sovereignty are hotly disputed (in theory and in political reality), a list providing no sources and misusing the few it cites is not worthy of this project. Work to cover the same topic can be done at List of sovereign states by date of formation, which is already better organised. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect) as it is redundant to the above-mentioned list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are not redundant: One list is sorted alphabetically and by inherent design can not be sorted by date. The other list is by date. List of countries by statehood uses dates with a different definition. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator makes good points: not only it is redundant, but due to different conception of statehood through time this list with all the good intentions will ever hardly make sense. Aldux (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are any of these lists based on a coherent set of criteria? These two lists place the birth of Bulgaria about 1150 years apart. Comparing this list, the one to be merged into it following the recent vote, and the one with which it is redundant, there are three different dates for Austria. I have half a mind to say delete them all and let God sort it out. Agricolae (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the main list should be split out into other articles (Europe, Africia, Asia, etc) due to the size of the article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe and Redirect to List of sovereign states by date of formation. Weak alternative: Split List of sovereign states by date of formation by continents. Either all continents should have separate articles, or there should be a single world list. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the List of countries by statehood is not redirecting - it is still present - there is a merge discussion, but nothing is finalized yet. Alinor (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – having no sources is not a reason to delete if the information is obviously correct or easily correctable. Sources can be found for the article quite easily. List of sovereign states by date of formation should be split into continents so more information can be added without the article become huge and cluttered. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: I conted that nothing in this list is either obviously correct or easily correctable. That is the problem. As one editor has already noted, it is not based on any "coherent set of criteria". Srnec (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean no "coherent set of criteria"? It's exactly the same concept as List of sovereign states by date of formation except specifically for Europe. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is sovereignty and how is it attained? What is the "coherent set of criteria"? France was not sovereign in 843. Nor San Marino in 301. Nor Andorra in 1278. And why is Turkey becoming a republic more significant than France becoming a republic? No coherent set of criteria. Not that "formation" is any more clear. . . Srnec (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Turkey/France comment is irrelevant as clearly the page is incomplete. If you are so concerned about the word "sovereignty", then the page could easily be renamed. This page is basically a sub-page of List of sovereign states by formation date. If this page requires deletion for "coherent set of criteria" reasons, then so should List of sovereign states by formation date. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is incomplete, why does it contain dates for France and Turkey? That comment is all too relevant. I don't like List of sovereign states by date of formation because the formations of states rarely have precise dates, as I tried explaining over at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia. I wouldn't mind in the least to see that page go, but one thing at a time. Not everything can be conveniently listified. A List of sovereign states by date of adoption of present constitution would be better but would exclude states with uncodified constitutions, like the UK. A List of members of the United Nations by date of entry (or whatever word is better than "entry") would also have a clear set of criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "If it is incomplete, why does it contain dates for France and Turkey?" I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous question. You have to start somewhere or the page will never be complete. Also, List of national constitutions includes the dates the constitutions were adopted and List of United Nations member states includes the dates the members joined so we needn't worry about creating new pages for those things. You are correct in saying that formation dates etc. rarely have precise dates, but we have to do our best to get it as accurate as possible – it's better than not including the information at all. That's why List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty contains the column on the right for including more information to show that the formation of a country happens over many stages. Sovereignty can be defined and the date of achieving that sovereignty isn't that hard to pick. It's only difficult for countries existing before the 2nd millennium, before countries really existed. McLerristarr / Mclay1 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list with good sourcing. Any problems can be fixed using the normal processes. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The implication that all states "achieve sovereignty" at some specific date is ridiculous. The issues should be addressed at the individual states' articles. When did the UK "achieve sovereignty" When England united with Scotland? They were both sovereign states before that. When (the republic of) Ireland split off? 1066?? 1689?? This information is unsuitable for a list. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar problems with entries for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and several others. None of these can possibly be claimed to have a clear date. Switzerland should be OK though. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an AfD notice that Modern empires' loss of European territory is to be merged into this article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also a AfD discussion about Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe ongoing. That's why I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Consider the proposal there for arranging all such articles in a coherent way. Alinor (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and make the table sortable. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This list should have no reference! The references should be within in the listed items. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: List of sovereign states by date of formation by design will not be sortable in the required manner. The need to correct is no reason for a deletion. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that a "date of achieving sovereignty" can be assigned for every sovereign state in Europe. The articles on the individual states do not resolve the issue because they do not all deal with the definition of sovereignty. When a date is assigned to France, I want to know where it comes from. Although the date can be found at the article on the history of France, the discussion there of what occurred then does not explain why it is a "date of achieving sovereignty". Srnec (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - At some point all countries must have come into existence – that is the date they achieve their sovereignty. The date for France is the date the Carolingian Empire split into three. That is definitely arguable however. The dates of achieving sovereignty are difficult to define before the 2nd millennium but easier after. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly agree that the date for France is arguable. And that's all it is. There are many other possible dates and no reliable source to choose among them. Any date we choose is Original Research and nothing but our opinion. Many of the dates we could choose are well into the second millennium and several are in the 20th century. France is by no means an exception, it's closer to being typical. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would say France, Denmark and Sweden are the only difficult ones because they were formed by "barbarians", making it difficult to pinpoint the exact time the tribes settled down to become a country. All the other countries are much easier to define. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Such a definition of "achieving sovereignty" seems to be totally different from the one in Sovereign State. Under the definition there, it is doubtful if any state before the 19th (maybe 18th) century could be said to have sovereignty. Kings or Princes or Emperors had sovereignty over territories but that is a very different concept. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clearly an issue with this group of articles that needs to be resolved but it does not appear that deletion is the preferred method of doing this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe

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

It is unclear what this article is about. It does not list all the predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. It does not list only the immediate predecessor. It doesn't do so because it is impossible to define clearly what is and is not a predecessor and when many states attained sovereignty. Is East Germany a predecessor of todays Federal Republic of Germany? Is the Fourth Republic a predecessor of France's Fifth? Aren't they the same France? Are the individual SSRs the predecessors or is it the USSR? Why should we even be trying to answer questions like this for the sake of a list that we cooked up and that cannot be found in the best reliable sources? Srnec (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and modify according to this proposal. Alinor (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the article states quite clearly at the top that it is incomplete. Completion, not deletion, should be the response by a Wikipedian to an incomplete article. The article is very new and so the definition of a predecessor may not be completely clear but this can be resolved. I created the article to avoid cluttering up List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty, which I notice has also been nominated for deletion. The articles can definitely be improved and should definitely not be deleted. Why is it that some people seem to only like summaries rather than large collections of information? McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it can't be resolved. That is why I am aiming for deletion. As one editor noted elsewhere about these lists, they are based on no "coherent set of criteria". The definition of a predecessor is not clear because it must arbitrarily restricted to make a meaningful list. The restrictions can be nothing but arbitrary. What is the predecessor of Germany today? It has many predecessors, all bearing different relationships to the present Germany. Which one(s) do we pick? It is arbitrary. Or we list them all, then the list is unwieldly and amounts to a List of every state or administrative unit in Europe that no longer exists. I would love a large collection of information based on a coherent criteria of inclusion/exclusion, not some arbitrary whim. Further, I don't see why ever potential piece of information must be listified. This just doesn't work. What is the predecessor of Andorra? It is better to write history, not list it. Let the articles on the histories of the present sovereign states explain how they got to be what they are and what came before them in their territories. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the definition of predecessor cannot reasonably be resolved. The individual issues should be and are addressed in the individual articles for the states. A list is a very poor way to present this information. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article is basically a list form of Timeline of sovereign states in Europe. It looks better as a list. McLerristarr / Mclay1 05:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just as soon see that one deleted too. Srnec (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a AfD discussion about List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty ongoing. That's why I tried to compile a list of the articles of this type (there are more than those discussed here): here. Consider the proposal there for arranging all such articles in a coherent way. Alinor (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is ridiculous to delete an article, because it has to be edited in some places. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ridiculous to imply that that's the rationale for this deletion request. As an other editor put it: "the definition of predecessor cannot reasonably be resolved". Srnec (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To expand on that, when does a state become a "new" state and so can have predecessors instead of just the same state which has changed somewhat? When it changes its name? When it has a revolution? When it acquires or loses territory? When it ""achieves sovereignty""? When it is liberated? The list is an inconsistent mish-mash of all these with some instances of each included and other similar instances ignored. No reputable historian or lawyer would ever want to try to codify this. So to create such a list we have to invent our own definition and then twist and distort history to fit our arbitrary definition. This cannot be anything but Original Research. What are predecessors? States, some of whose territories are incorporated into the "new" state? States which contributed ""a lot"" of territory? Whatever an editor chooses today? The assumptions underlying this list distort history Dingo1729 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dingo gets it exactly right. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and useful. The fact that it may be hard to iron out the details is not a justification for deletion.--Carwil (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is. The reason is that the information presented is misleading. The article is not only completely useless, but downright damaging (distorting). It suggests that the notions of "predecessor [state]" and "sovereign state" are clear-cut when they are anything but. This information simply cannot be listified per WP:V and WP:RS to avoid WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. I would also say that when an article is about "Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe", the question of what counts as a predecessor and what counts as a sovereign state are not "details". Srnec (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A bold piece of editing makes the discussion moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMON

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

Does not seem to be a notable aspect of computer networking technology. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into RMON and replace with Disambiguate page for the "Japan SMON", "Oracle SMON", "RMON's SMON". Alinor (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think merging two articles that do not cite a single independent source between them is a sensible idea. And if the overall concept is not notable there is really no need for a dab page explaining the different subtypes, which at this time are all redlinks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that someone has boldly converted this into a disambiguation page, rendering the discussion moot. - Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iberica Branch IEE

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

No evidence that this particular branch, which is one of ninety, is notable unto itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of IEE branches. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no reason for a single branch to have its own article. JodyB_talk 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per JodyB. Perhaps it could be merged to some list or some larger article related to the topic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom International

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

Website does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. The most significant coverage it's received is from a WorldNetDaily article, a highly partisan source, and even that is arguably trivial since it only summarizes some content from the website. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions, indexes of website rankings, lists of banned websites, or merely self-references. A request for additional reliable sources covering the website has been in the article since 2007. Oore (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB The website does not satisfy the criteria given in the guidelines --NotedGrant Talk 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, keep and figure out what wiki troll keeps getting pissed off by this wikipedia entry and nominating it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.210.123 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With 21 references and dozens of crosslinks it's actually hard to take this nomination seriously. Doc Tropics 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more difficult to take this comment seriously when all it does count the number of references without taking into account what those references actually are. For example, the book references are misleading at best, as the website is mentioned in footnotes at the end of the two books cited. The only arguably substantial coverage this organization has received is contained entirely in one WorldNetDaily article. Oore (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The nominator of this Afd says that the article "does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB." But WP:WEB also says these guidelines are best treated with "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Why should this article be an exception? On one hand it certainly has the markings of a notable website- healthy amount of traffic and 8 Google sitelinks (and WP:WEB does say sitelinks are evidence of credibility and site importance). On the other hand, there does seem to be a dearth of google hits one would expect from a site which has so much traffic. So what gives? Simply this: while it may not have much notability among non-Muslims in the West(aside from some hard-core Neo-cons or Zionists), it is extremely notable among a sizable number of Muslims with Internet access. Sure, there are plenty of websites out there that Muslims loathe, but faithfreedom.org is the one website Muslims who are active online despise more than any other. It's despised so much that it has received a "shunning" of sorts. See this page which lists 6 "anti-Muslim" websites and then says there's one more which they won't mention by name: "The most anti-Islamic site will die if it faces a frozen counter..." This site quotes the page above and then the last poster mentions faithfreedom by name. There are a few Muslim websites who do mention Ali Sina by name- and spend a lot of bandwidth on rebuttals to his essays such as this one which calls him the Dajjal(Muslim Antichrist), but most avoid links to faithfreedom.org. So we should delete this article, be part of the shunning and help the "freeze the counter" campaign? The pieces to this puzzle are all there, although it is much harder establishing this website's notability (or notoriety if you will): common sense dictates that this website is notable. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:WEB states about Google site links was only recently added and by a banned editor at that. I don't really think it's a strong indicator for inclusion. The other sites you've mentioned here are forum threads and minor polemic websites, none of which are notable in themselves or have anything to do with the criteria at WP:WEB. That a website has been discussed in some circles or groups of people does not make the website notable. If we were to use criteria as you've laid out, the scope and amount of websites able to be included on Wikipedia would be significantly expanded, so I doubt this merits an "occasional exception." Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oore, why are you changing the rules here to get this article deleted? And why are you deleting content from the article, to make it look worse than it was?? and why cannot you just make your point, and let others comment on it, without discussing their arguments over and over again?

Actually, I did not want to get involved in this discussion. However, Oore's methods to get this article deleted draw me to the Keep-side of the discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit summaries and talk page post more than sufficiently answer this question. Did you bother to look? Oore (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You deleted the complete debates-section, as well as the section concerning the questionable political views of the webmaster. Thus, we are deprived of the knowledge, that the site contains debates with prominent people like Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, Edip Yuksel and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. How could people have a fair judgement to this article if you delete complete sections of it?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair judgment of the content does not entail assessment of material that is contrary to policies. Oore (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources are given to establish notability by WP:GNG. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...what? That's the whole issue here, and it would be helpful if you could point out those sources. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Simply put, there has been no significant coverage of the website by independent reliable sources. Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norita

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

A defunct company that had only one product. No evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A defunct company that had only one product under its own name that's at all well known. This product is the Norita 66, which you can read about here, and which was notable for (i) being an eye-level medium-format SLR (not unprecedented, but rare), and (ii) having a lens that not only was unusually fast in its time for a medium-format camera but was still described as fast a couple of decades later. I've also seen the Norita 66 described as having been influential on Asahi's design of the Pentax 6×7, but don't have a source for this immediately to hand. I'm not brimming with enthusiasm either for voting to keep this article or to create one on the Norita 66 as I think Camerapedia does this kind of thing better than Wikipedia does. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as usual at AFD, is the lack of reliable sources. I'm not seeing any on the Camerapedia page either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read above that it was a matter of notability -- although of course "notability" can have a very strange meaning in Wikipedia talk pages. ¶ As the Rittreck 6×6, the camera is written up on p.299 of 戦後日本カメラ発展史 (1971) and on p.141 of The Japanese Historical Camera (2004). As both the Rittreck and the Norita, it's written up on p.125 of The History of the Japanese Camera (1991). And those are just books that happen to be visible on my bookshelves -- or [cough] on the floor. ¶ I've temporarily mislaid my copy of ズノーカメラ誕生：戦後国産カメラ10物語 (1999), which I am reliably informed (because I wrote that) devotes an entire chapter to the Norita 66; if the chapter is like most others in that book, the author (who has researched long and hard) will also provide details on the company. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC) .... PS I've found Hagiya's book and have done some rewriting. But I'll pause now. (I haven't yet decided whether this merits an article in WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure...I agree that, if kept, this might make more sense titled Norita 66. Regarding the reliable sources, if the books mentioned above are indeed accurate, I think that should count as potentially reliable sources. Additionally, this could potentially be merged with the Graflex entry (provided there was an addition to that entry about the Norita 66 being marketed as the Graflex Norita in the U.S.) --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Norita 66 per above. Vodello (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Second relist rationale: another week to see if foreign language sources can be added.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TRON project. we have to decide somehow. Merge seems a reasonable option DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MicroScript programming language

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

No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of programming languages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources or information found on Google search. A programming language used by a small number of people, hence not notable enough per [WP:N]]. TYelliot (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering that this is part of the TRON project, it is possible that it is of some significance in the context of TRON. Therefore it may be desirable to merge this somewhere. I would suggest where, except that I know very little about TRON. I think someone with more extensive knowldege of the topic should comment on the appropriate course of action. Rilak (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this debate, as well as several others I have begun on marginal or non-notable computer science topics, is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, so whatever experts we may have around should be aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have any faith into the competentcy of WikiProject Computing since all they ever seem do is slap own tags on articles and mark fundamental topics in computer architecture as being of low importance. And this is when they have an active editor or two. Rilak (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to TRON Project. Not finding anything in the article or elsewhere that shows notability, although IANAP. TRON Project itself is a short article and has plenty of space for this material as a separate section, and people reading the TRON Project article might want this information. Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Me Dead

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

No sources or other evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE-Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is notable at all, there's very little evidence of notability. No sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.ukrockfestivals.com/treworgey-tree-fayre-1989.html

[2] ttp://www.welovefestivals.com/festivals/1989/Treworgey-Tree-Fayre

[3] ttp://www.hawkwinddirect.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]