Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 8

< 7 December	9 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather radar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InCOMMON Community Development

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I with a few others have helped create this wikipedia page for inCOMMON Community Development in Omaha, NE. I have helped contribute to the credibility of the page and its accuracy. If there are concrete steps I can do from keeping this page from being deleted please inform me.
Thank you, Calvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smothersc (talk • contribs) 2010-12-08 20:44:50
Speedy delete G11 - clearly intended as an advertising page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I declined the speedy as there are at least two reasonable sources and I didn't consider the tone to be entirely advertising. Possible COI problem but if the article improves during the week of AfD discussion I would strengthen my opinion to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 December 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, Courcelles 04:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely local organizations generally don't meet WP:CORP. I neither see nor found any references from outside the Omaha area. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 17 December 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. Courcelles 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Fourne

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

I don't believe that this article about a PhD student meets the criteria of WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Google search comes up with school page, Facebook, Linked In , etc. and nothing from Google Scholar. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to be found. Not a crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

He is doing cutting edge work in the fields of organizational ambidexterity, strategic renewal, organizational and individual learning. Give him the benefit of the doubt and leave the profile up. You will hear from this gentlemen and his promoters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.240.31.186 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — 93.240.31.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - We don't want to hear from him or his promoters. We want to hear from indpendent reliable sources. And I don't see any coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 03:28, 15 December 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sears McCulloh (née Richard Sears McCulloch}

I can find no evidence in Google or Google Books that this person is notable in terms of WP:GNG or WP:PROF, and the article doesn't provide any evidence either besides words, words, words (having published a book or having received an honorary doctorate is not a guarantee for notability, as far as I know). I'll gladly stand corrected, but right now I think this should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Google or Google Books really a good source for someone whose work was done about 150 years ago? I do not think so. I am however neutral as it needs sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, given the copyright issues, it's usually a better source for that era that for more modern subjects. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced biography, created by a banned sockpuppetteer. The banned sockpuppetteer got this person's name wrong and didn't cite good sources, causing all of the trouble here. I've corrected the name in the searches above. Use that name, and you'll with ease find two biographies in biographical dictionaries, plus a biography by Milton Halsey Thomas and several biographical details elsewhere. You'll also find the what-did-you-do-in-the-war fact, not mentioned at all in the banned sockpuppetteer's content, that this person is actually remembered for. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the looks of it, it does appear that McCulloch is a fairly important researcher in terms of early thermodynamics. However, it does also seem that all of the information about him is in books that are not available online. Uncle G, while what you said is usually true...but, it gets a bit blurry once you go back to the 1800s. Most of the stuff is offline at the moment, though I am convinced that it is out there. Silver seren^C 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be enough coverage in the works of Frost and Singer to establish notability. If Silver seren is correct about the subject's importance in thermodynamics, that's even more evidence of thier notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to the correct name, Richard Sears McCulloh. There are not many sources for McCulloch, but plenty for McCulloh. I have added some content - clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a fascinating dude. Let's keep him. Thanks to Uncle G for their good work--perhaps, Uncle, you would be kind enough to close this AfD and move the article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the rename, but not the closure. You might like to ask someone such as Ron Ritzman for the latter. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shinese

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

Reason Mister Gallagher (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable breed cross. Most of the information and all of the sources refer to the parent breeds each of which already has an entry. Suggest this be redirected to List of dog hybrids with other designer crosses, where it already has a listing. Mister Gallagher (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was erroneously placed on the talk page of this discussion and copied over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we take away the discussion about the parent breeds, we still have a sourced stub that attests that this hybrid, rare as it may be, is still acknowledged by major dog breeding associations. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even taking into account the concerns of the nominator about the majority of sources, it seems that there are enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. A merge can be discussed later. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nicholls

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

Unverified BLP. A Google News search delivers this, which does not suggest that the subject is notable. He may have worked on a lot of notable shows ("may" since none of it is verified), but I am not sure that that makes him automatically notable. And despite the fact that he looks pretty good, kind of gloomy and hip with his beard and his beer, the news hits suggest that he does not pass WP:GNG. Article was originally written by what appears to be an SPA, and it certainly reads a bit like a resume; that's not a reason for deletion, though--non-notability is. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the potential sources, he certainly looks like a major producer, and good sources tend to show that. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I found and added several sources found from Google news and books. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so easy, calling in the squad is probably overkill. I've seen the sources you added--I saw them all before I nominated the article. They all mention the person, nothing more; the question is, what kind of job does one need to do on something notable to become notable oneself? Applying GNG doesn't help here, since none of these references provide any kind of discussion of the man and the work he does. We agree, I think, that the guy who makes the coffee in the BBC complex is not notable, nor the cameraman for Top gear--so where is the line? If you could point to policy or precedent, that would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to call in the rescue kops. :-) Anyway, no, I do not think there is any policy or guideline, nor have I heard his shows (I live in Albany, New York). But there have been reviews of his producing credits, for hit shows. So I think he passes GNG as well as WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The section titled "Critical reviews of his work" seems to prove he is notable. Plus he has produced many notable works. If you wanted anything more added to the article, you could always search for his name and the name of some of his notable shows. I think there is enough already there to prove his notability though. Dream Focus 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a couple of very brief mentions (in the 'Critical reviews of his work' section), as part of reviews of projects that were team efforts (as opposed to being the topic's solo creative work), does not amount to notability, and would not distinguish him from the majority of BBC radio producers/writers/voice-actors/etc, for whom we'd expect to see similar occasional brief mentions. 'Find' search results do not appear to turn up anything more substantive about this Simon Nicholls. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RS sources, as reflected in g searches.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS -- invalid argument. You have not demonstrated that any of these hits are either reliable or yield "significant coverage" on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper g searches can easily tease out the RS sources I refer to. Of course, wp:ghits is about something else entirely -- simply referring to the number of ghits, rather than the fact that a g search can easily yield the RS sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then your argument devolves to a mere argument by assertion (as you have done nothing to substantiate that your "g searches" actually yield "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). I would suggest that "~~it has g-hits~~ "g-searches" [produce g-hits] therefore it has RSs [therefore it is notable]" is no more valid than "it has XX-many g-hits, therefore it is notable", and that the two arguments aren't that dissimilar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who -- other than you, repeatedly now -- has mentioned ghits? Very confused. Are you putting words in my mouth by accident? Twice now?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"g searches" (unless they happen to provide no hits) inevitably means "g hits". The 'g hits" are the results of the "g search". So now you have compounded an invalid argument with pointless hair-splitting. Very tendentious. Misrepresenting a valid paraphrase as "putting words in my mouth"? WP:AGF? Game-playing? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the notability for WP:CREATIVE by producing many notable works.222.127.18.194 (talk) 08:11, 15 December 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. Courcelles 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Farshori

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

I started working on this, and quickly found this and this. I contend that despite the claims in the article, this person is not notable. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one passing mention on Gnews. The only Gbooks hits are by Books LLC, which publishes copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Not enough indepth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Discussion about related articles from the same creator is also taking place here, and since that article seems to be about the parent company, I bundled everything there. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fileup

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a product of SoftArtisans corporation. When SoftArtisans was proposed for deletion, the author began forking their products into new articles that were less notable than the corporation. At this point, notability of the product is not supported through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officewriter

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 December 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) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McCulloch

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the views of the subject and his writings, that isn't the point: the point is that he appears to be non-notable and there is no evidence of any third-party coverage of him at all. However it is asserted that a Swedish political group used his ideas, but I can't find any reliably sourced evidence of this and furthermore there isn't any evidence that the group in question is notable either. I don't support censorship of ideas. I just believe this page is inappropriate for Wikipedia because the subject appears almost completely non-notable which seems to have been overlooked until now. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, you beat me to it. Person is indeed non-notable, which I found confirmed after wading through ten pages of this. Google Books confirms that he wrote a book, and while I can't wait until I can order the book from Google, notability requires secondary literature. There is plenty of chatter on the internets, but we're building an encyclopedia, not a chatterbox. He must not be a very important racist, since I couldn't find him on the SPLC's website. How sad for him--that would have increased his notability somewhat, I would imagine. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that his concept of "racial preservationism" does not entail hatred of other races per se, but rather is more explicitly about the support of the continued existence of the 'Nordish' race (and, for that matter, all other races), and he says that he does not associate with 'neo-Nazis'. Therefore it would be relatively hard for a group like the SPLC to nail a claim against him for 'hate'. Whatever the case, all evidence points to non-notability and that's the bottom line.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is fixable and the guy is notable. Click on "Books" in Find Sources (above) and add "racial" to refine the search. He gets a fair amount of discussion. I may just strip the article down to remove all self-published content and add what the sources say. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement. I changed 'supremacist' to 'nationalist' as I feel it is more accurate based upon what he has written.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid that change, since that is not what the source says. This article is likely to become an edit war battlefield, and the rules must be established up front and then rigidly enforced: Only reliable and independent sources, nothing self-published (except where quoted by the sources), what the sources say but only what the sources say. Thems the rules on this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable that McCulloch advocates the creation of all-white nation states, for example in the USA (see here) but does not advocate supremacy of white people over other races (see here). Should verifiability trump truth? It's verifiable by his own account. Personally, I don't really care that much, but I believe that the article is inaccurate and misleading to describe him as a 'supremacist', even if that's what the third-party sources say, because the self-published sources say otherwise. What I would also like at this point is that if no one else comments, that the AfD be closed as no consensus, default to keep, but would value further opinions on whether to keep or delete.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability does indeed trump "truth". Wikipedia should just report what has been said about the subject by reliable independent sources, citing the sources. This is what they have said. Maybe the sources have access to information other than the self-published material. You could soften the statement by saying "He has been called a noted white supremacist", but if every statement is qualified like that, the article gets unreadable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO, not notable in general, and even less notable as an 'academic'. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites three books and a scholarly paper that discuss the author and his theories at some length. A web search on "Richard McCulloch" racial throws up a mass of commentary, positive or negative. You may not agree with the guy, I certainly don't, but he is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, just has some seriously bad views.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate sourcing for notability. Would be without even the Swedish connection & translations, but that adds to it. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 29 December 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. Courcelles 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penycloddiau

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

This non-notable hill does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Quable (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how this hill does not satisfy inclusion criteria, without resort to tautology? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographical features such as this are typically considered notable. Even just from a geological standpoint this one is particularly so with coverage going back over a century [1][2] and it's one of the largest hill forts in Wales.[3]--Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is remarkably well-sourced for its size and geographical features are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a fully sourced article about a named geographic feature. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets several distinct notability criteria. S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:14, 13 December 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) 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Taheri

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

Fails WP:PROF. *Delete: per nom, non notable enough. He has no significant international achievements. Poor references. DrPhosphorus (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You are the nominator. Who do you think you're fooling? Drmies (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF as he does not appear to satisfy any of the listed criteria. Fails WP:BIO as there does not seem to be any independent coverage. Ray^Talk 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom & Ray. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "per nom": So you think that this subject is an entertainer too, eh? Have you read the article under discussion? Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Correction": I have modified the reason for nomination based on Ray's comment. It was what I meant, but I wasn't perfectly familiar with the wiki terminology. However, Both points mentioned by Ray justify the nomination. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:10, 11 December 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/withdrawn - the spelling mistake was the problem. Moving to Rocky Agusta - could do with more refs though. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Augusta

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

PROD removed, but this is still an unsourced BLP for a long time. This is undoubtedly a person who was once a racing driver, but given that such notable people usually pull up a lot of references, I can find very little on this person that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed down the problem; the name is misspelled. Try searching for "Rocky Agusta"...--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to Rocky Agusta) as the individual has competed in a world championship (the FIA GT Championship), which satisfies the inclusion criteria for sportspeople ("Have driven in a fully professional series", see WP:ATHLETE). A source is available here. Esteffect (talk) 22:26, 8 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Theodore Murr

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

This article is about a priest and author with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As a priest, he appears to have been, well, a priest. He is mentioned here, and [4]. There is no coverage of any significance in reliable sources. As an author, the writings section in the article lists his thesises and a music composition. The body of the text mentions his first novel which is published through Booksurge, a self-publishing service. I can find no indication of significant critical reception. Whpq (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 9 December 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. No prejudice against a nomination that actually advances an argument for deletion. Courcelles 00:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Soroush

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

Fails WP:ENT. not notable enough. Poor references. DrPhosphorus (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — DrPhosphorus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is not an entertainer, thus the nominator's rationale is irrelevant. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Apart from the subject not being an entertainer there is also no AfD notice in the article. This should be closed without prejudice to a future nomination with a valid deletion rationale and proper notification. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois)

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

Article has been tagged with requests for additional references and questions of notability. Article is 90% copied/paraphrased from the only reference. Only reference is a genealogy website. Article has not been improved since being tagged with issues. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Ammended Nomination After Edison's work I still think the article is marginal on notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article and added some references. It is interesting that inventor Elisha Grey demonstrated a telephone in the church in 1874, but otherwise it seems an average church. Edison (talk) 20:33, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:12, 15 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural KEEP, the article appears to have plenty of references by now. Nakon 08:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see some more work on this article, and might take a crack at it later on... but the sourcing is sufficient, for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:14, 27 December 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. Courcelles 00:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Patrick Stuart

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

No secondary sources found. All TV roles are unnamed/one-shot characters or "not starred" whatever that means, except as a non-notable character on the 1980 Galactica reboot. All film roles are very short. Perhaps the only role that may save him is The Penguins of Madagascar, but even there, Private is one of no fewer than seven lead characters and Joey is only a tertiary character. In any event, he doesn't meet WP:BLP since there are no secondary sources, and he's dangerously close to failing WP:ENT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT with a bullet. Extensive career over many years with many named and recurring roles,[5] as well as Emmy Award nomination.[6] 7 episodes of Galactica 1980 in role of Doctor Zee. 35 episodes of All My Children as Will Cortlandt. 7 episodes of The Simple Life as Greg Champlain. 4 episodes of Encore! Encore! as Claude Bertrand. 2 episodes of JAG as Father O'Rourke. 19 episodes of Andy Richter Controls the Universe as Keith. 3 episodes of Second Time Around as Derek. 8 episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation as Attorney Adam Matthews. 6 episodes of Still Standing as Perry. 5 episodes of The Closer as Deputy D.A. Garnett, 4 episodes of Wolverine and the X-Men as Avalanche. 10 episodes of 90210 as Charles Clark. 42 episodes of The Penguins of Madagascar as Private... as well as several dozens of other televison shows as named characters. That the nom offered "dangerously close to failing WP:ENT" makes me feel and with respects, that he did not look before nominating.[7][8] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to tell me how any of the so-called "sources" you dug up are non-trivial? All I see is not-even-a-full-sentence mentions along the lines of "James Patrick Stuart played Character X". You can't base a whole article on that! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respects, I do not know what you "saw" in your searches, but you began this nomination with "no secondary sources found" and "...TV roles are unnamed/one-shot characters or "not starred". As reliable secondary sources were easily found, and as the actor has had many named signficant roles in notable productions... and many roles that were clearly not one-shots, your opening statement was patently incorrect. And while trivial might apply if meeting the GNG through significant coverage were the only assertion of notability being made, it does not here... as the assertion for notability is through the actor's lengthy career meeting WP:ENT. The presumption per ENT is that reliable sources exist that can verify that this actor has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. And as such reliable sources do exist to verify the assertion, ENT is met. But interestingly, and also missed in your WP:BEFORE, is that there are indeed at least some articles offering more-than-trivial coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ENT can establish a presumption of notability. However, no topic is notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's doubly true for a BLP. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption through WP:ENT is that reliable sourcs exist that can verify the scope of the actor's career and that he has had significant roles in notable productions, and not that the actor must also meet the GNG.

There is a non-policy tendency for editors to demand significant coverage under WP:GNG as if it were the only criteria acceptable for showing notability... but it is not the only criteria, and if the GNG were the only criteria we were allowed to consider, there would be no reason for the subsidiary criteria to exist at all.

To clarify: WP:ENT is set for cases where significant coverage may be lacking, by allowing editors a reasonable presumption that an actor who has significant roles in notable productions may indeed be found notable if these roles can be properly verified in the reliable sources without it also and needlessly demanding that the verification must itself be significant coverage.

And in a BLP, information that is likley to be challanged may be considered for removal if it cannot be properly verified in a reliable source. But as reliable sources toward verification are present, we do not have a violation of WP:BLP... and we do even have at least some significant coverage alowing some extended discussion of the individual and his career. To me, per policy and guideline, the keep seems a given. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of coverage, please see here and here. Silver seren^C 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT is a guideline and "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." WP:V and WP:BLP, however, are policy. The sources provided by Silver seren include a brief entry in the apparent blog www.serienjunkies.de and this, which gives a good bit of opinion about the character Stuart plays and virtually nothing about him. If your argument is that there are no sources that give substantial coverage but that we can cobble together the bits and pieces from sources like that (and trivial coverage like this, this and this), please say so. At the moment, I'm looking for sources with substantial coverage and not finding them. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Substantial coverage" has never been a policy or guideline mandate. With respects. my "argument" is that your argument is incorrect, as is that of the nominator who made some patently incorrect and easily refuted statements toward the actor and his many roles. The AV Club article Silver seren offered goes far toward refuting the nominator's claim of insignificant roles by its showing the significance of a role in a notable production. Trivial would apply only if the assertion was simply his meeting WP:GNG. Again, an erroneous demand for substantial coverage, while laudable, is not per policy nor applicable guidelines, and his career can be verified in reliable sources... and THAT is per both policy and guideline. The requirement that we be able to verify an assertion of significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is not a violation of BLP... quite the opposite... it specifcally meets it. Policies WP:V and WP:BLP ARE being followed, as well as the guideline of WP:ENT. And that others are able and willing to improve the article is actually a pretty decent reason to allow its continued improvements over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references to the article. The subject appears to be fairly notable, though he is admittedly often a supporting character. Nevertheless, he's fairly prolific in television and the sources in a search reflect this. Silver seren^C 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Per Silver's added refs -- sufficient to reflect notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 19:46, December 10, 2010

I didn't want to put this comment up as a "keep" because I am not registered on wikipedia yet, and I do not know if it is appropriate to do so, but I would support the above people who favor keeping this article. I have seen him in more than a few things now, although often as a supporting character (although I appreciate the additions to the page noted above, as they have helped me find more of him). Also, he does have a starring role in Andy Richter Controls the Universe, and I think this should add a good amount to his notability (and even though the show was cancelled after 2 seasons, it did have a fair amount of episodes, was on during prime time, and averaged over 7 million viewers). I think there are certainly better candidates than him to be removed from wikipedia (and I feel like we should probably err on the side of inclusion if anything, considering how useful wikipedia is for those looking for information on people). 138.88.156.182 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jackson (Australian politician)

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

Suspected hoax. I can't find anything to verify that this Australian politician exists. He was supposedly elected to the Australian Parliament in 2010. I'm bringing this to the community to determine if this is for real. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haffron

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

Fancruft bio of a softcore-series character. There isn't really much to say about him not engaging in original research. Damiens.rf 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-universe discussion of fictional character. No evidence of independent notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if possible, merge to a characters list. Hurricanehink (talk) 07:00, 15 December 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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-Excellence

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

Non-notable neologism. Proposed deletion declined by author with no explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin A duplicate page was created at E-excellence, which has now been redirected to E-Excellence. If the result of this discussion is to delete this page, please remember to delete the redirect as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page as it is is WP:NEO and a bit of an advertisement; but 'E for Excellence' is a much older term with wider meaning. If you look at pictures of U.S. Navy ships, for instance, often you'll see a large "E" painted on their superstructure - this means the ship received an excellence award. May be notable for an article, but not in its current format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. In fact close to speedy deletion, as the page appears to be promotion for EMF-the Forum of e-Excellence. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & as an advertisement. (imho — speedy is appropriate…) Skarebo (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. e-Excellence refers to all the factors that contribute to excellence in the digital economy: availability of investment, innovative outlook, highly skilled personnel, success in the market place, quality-minded leadership, etc. You have to wonder whether the people who type this stuff realize how unintentionally hilarious it is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a concept (E-Excellence), an international contest for this concept and its prize distributed since 7 years (http://www.seal-of-excellence.org/past_winners) and a company who organizes the contest. Therefore it's not aimed as an advertisement, but for information source for people interested in this concept or contest or its organizers. Furthermore, it neither comply to speedy deletion, as G11 says: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." - Hardzsi (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) ~~Ferenc Hargitai (fhargitai@gmail.com) 213.178.99.67 (talk)~~ 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — 213.178.99.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete no indication of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM. Note that another duplicate article European Seal of e-Excellence has just been speedied, created by one of several WP:SPAs that have been working on this. Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged duplicate page was merely an attempt to move content from one page to another. Deletion of the new page resulted in the content also disappearing from the original! If you interfere in any attempt to clean things up IN LINE WITH YOUR OWN GUIDELINES within minutes, my message to you is simple: the world CAN live without Wikipedia! By the way, do you have a policy against disparagement of your contributors by your administrators? see comment by Smerdis of Tlön aboveStuartmilljohn (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Stuartmilljohn (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Stuartmilljohn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, policy discourages disparagement of contributors. ~~But you're not a contributor, just an opportunist leeching off Wikipedia for your own gain. Our message is simple: Wikipedia can live without you.~~EEng (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the above comments; they were harsh. But I still believe notability is lacking. EEng (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: Comment At the time the duplicate page (E-excellence) was redirected, its content was identical to the content of E-Excellence at the same time. (See E-excellence as of 17:08, 8 December 2010 vs E-Excellence as of 17:08, 8 December 2010). Since the two pages were identical, there can not have been any loss of content resulting from the redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (Did not realize "duplicate page" referred to another new page that had been speedily deleted.)[reply]

@EEng|EEng: I am positively appalled by the tone in use in this forum! Some people here really seem to believe that they are the mind police... I have no problem admitting that I made a contribution in which I have a special interest. However, it is also of interest to a wide community of people and having an article published in Wikipedia on the European Seal of e-Excellence will not engender any "gain" for me, nor for the 2 dozen not-for-profit organisations that support it. Are you accusing other NGOs (not to mention the thousands of commercial companies that have a Wikipedia entry) in the same way when they publish information about their activities???Stuartmilljohn (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: I moved the sections on partners and winners of the Seal that was previously on "e-Excellence" (where it was indeed not very relevant) to a new article on "European Seal of e-Excellence". These sections disappeared entirely when the latter entry was "speed deleted" (indeed, within a few minutes!). Could you restore them please? BTW, I still do not understand the reasons for deleting the "European Seal of e-Excellence" entry. It provided information about a well-established award that promotes innovation in the ICT sector. Nobody "gains" from this entry, besides the organisations that apply for the Seal and, after selection by an independent jury, may prevail themselves of having won it.Stuartmilljohn (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am not an administrator and cannot restore deleted pages. As for European Seal of e-Excellence, that page was deleted by Lectonar (talk · contribs). You would have to contact that user to understand his or her reason for the deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. This clearly fails WP:Notability (books); that is not enough for speedy deletion, but the patently false claim of "worldwide critical acclaim" in the week since its supposed release, plus the complete absence of any confirmation from searches, moves it firmly into "hoax" territory. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sparrow on the windowsill

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

Delete There is no evidence at all of notability. No sources are cited, and none have been found by extensive searching. For example, a Google search for "The sparrow on the windowsill" Lambie produces only this Wikipedia article. A similar search for just "The sparrow on the windowsill" produces nothing that relates at all to this book, though there are hits referring to other works, such as Mary Poppins. Amazon does not list it. Google books does not mention it. Similarly with other searches. The article says that the book has "received worldwide critical acclaim", yet I can find nothing about it anywhere, making this claim dubious to say the least. The article appears to be either a hoax or self-promotion for a totally non-notable book. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social floor

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

This article in a nutshell states the following: "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why it's right. Some people don't agree, but they're wrong." Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any particular point of view, and this article would need to be completely blown up and started over to come even remotely close to being NPOV. ~~POV issues aside, I find minimal reliable, non-editorial coverage of either "social floor" or the related "social minimum".~~redacted; see below —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So despite the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's article on the subject being cited five times here in this very article, you didn't find it? And you didn't find Jeremy Waldron's treatise on the subject? Or Jan Narveson's? Leonard Marsh's definition of the subject may be hard to find, but those three aren't. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this article's style in very poor taste. It reads, well, like an essay written by a high school student, rather than a dispassionate encyclopedic treatment of the concept, its history, and its role. Whether this is sufficient for deletion under WP:NOT, or whether somebody wants to take a go at fixing it, is the real question. Suffice to say, I think few would miss it if we deleted this article as it stands now. Ray^Talk 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the late response; I've been busy IRL. To answer Uncle G's question, I did see the Stanford article and the other sources cited on the page; however, those and the others I did find are all advocacy pieces that essentially state the same thing that this article does: "This is what it is and why it should be done; some people don't agree and here are the reasons why they don't agree, but here are the reasons why they're wrong." I've taken a closer look at the sources and now believe that a decent quality article may be written on this subject; however, in its present state I still believe it is so hopelessly POV that it needs TNT. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's a good thing that our article says essentially the same thing as reliable sources? That's the whole idea of our policies on verifiability and original research. Much of our article is far from "hopelessly POV", consisting of reporting what others have written about the subject, with attribution, so is perfectly acceptable content. If you think that any conclusions are drawn incorrectly that that can be easily fixed by removing a sentence or two rather than throwing away all of that good content. In other words, keep the "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why [some people think that] it's right. Some people don't agree." and ditch the small part of the article that says "but they're wrong". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our editing policy is to improve articles in situ rather than to delete them and start again. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep (a) I think the nominator did not quite capture the meaning in their summary. The page does not say "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to" but rather "A social floor, also called a social minimum, is the concept that there is baseline level of social services and human rights to which every human being should have access." one is POV, the second isn't. So the POV objection is not valis. (b) a page being POV is not grounds for deletion anyway, only for rewriting. (c) a cursory search on Google finds tens of thousands of hits for social floor, including presentations at the UN, so it is clearly notable. Francis Bond (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is so clearly a keep that I would urge the nominator to take a moment to reflect and perhaps be a little slower to propose deletion in the future Francis Bond (talk)

Keep but requires a lot of editingLm 997 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire, Nation and the Literary Text"

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

non-notable essay also per WP:OR Mo ainm~Talk 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. The article is apparently an abstract of a paper about a Telugu poem, proposing that it be interpreted in the light of identity politics, anti-colonialism, and other usual suspects. By using Radhika Santwanam (Appeasing Radhika), a classic work of the eighteenth century Telugu poetess Muddupalani as an example, the authors have attempted to portray the imbalance in the cultural authority during the colonial period, and its changing trends. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd also userfy this. We do not yet have articles about Muddupalani nor Radhika Santwanam, which would seem to be promising subjects. This text may be useful for the creation of those articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I began a stub about Muddupalani, which wants expansion. I am not sure whether the character Ila mentioned in the source I found is identical to Ila (Hinduism); there seem to be some differences. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay--Sodabottle (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Sadads (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just removed the bios from the article as they are copyvios of the linked sources. As for the synopsis/essay part of the article, the subject doesn't appear to be notable from what I've been able to find. But like Smerdis of Tlön says above, the subject's subjects appear to be quite notable, so this could potentially be used as a source for those articles. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 10 December 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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archangelati

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

Non-notable religious movement. The article itself states, "A simple search of the term "Archangelati" on any given online search engine will produce multiple blogs and pages of self-identified contributors to the movement." Google search for Archangelati brings up no relevant results other than the movement's web page. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The article is more about what the movement plans to do in the future than about anything they have already done. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2010

[[User talk:Archangel777| I have since fixed these problems and now more notable references are included, now talk of what has alredy been accomplished, and have made it more than just a definition.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Longo

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Being the youngest person on a city council also does not confer general notability. (After all, somebody has to be the youngest.) Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I could not find significant coverage, and one of nine city council members in a municipality of 30,000 people is not notable. Ray^Talk 22:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. He's a city-wide elected official, but only of the 3rd-largest city in Maine. I'm willing to be convinced either way, but I want to see some discussion before being more wholehearted. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Bangor has a population of 30,000, and the subject has nothing more than passing press mentions. Shall we start allowing biographies for school board members from one-high school towns like Princeton, which also has a population of 30k? What about the student representative to the school board? These are all people who are in the same category of prominence, and who are hideously unlikely to ever receive substantial coverage in secondary sources. Ray^Talk 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see your point. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. As a newly-elected city councilman he has received virtually no press coverage; one mention in one article about the election results seems to be it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 15 December 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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Bird

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

This article basically states the following: "Ward Bird is in prison. He shouldn't be because it sets a bad precedent for all of us." POV issues notwithstanding, most reliable source coverage surrounding this person is limited to local coverage of his legal case, failing WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether or not he's guilty, the rather unimpressive crime ("Criminal threatening") he's jailed for isn't encyclopedia material. If his case someday becomes a landmark and affects the court system in some way in the future, then coverage of it may be necessary in another article, but it would still be unsuitable as a biography. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 8 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Seon Hye

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:N. While trying to reference this previously unsourced bio, a Google News search under both "any time" and in the Archives turned up zero hits for anyone under this name. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment While not too surprising that there are no English-language results when looking for a Korean media personality, there DO seem to be a number of g-hits under his actual Hangul name 정선혜, even if not under its Englified version. Per WP:CSB, I would strongly suggest we get input from Wikipedians able to read and translate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:46, 17 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete voice actors who redub cartoons from their original language into some other language rarely get non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and this woman is no exception. The news hits in Korean refer to a professor or a 1990s volleyball player, not the subject of this article. cab (call) 05:02, 22 December 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) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICT segment and specialisms model

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

No assertion of WP:Notability, zero coverage online apart from organization's own website, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Proposed deletion contested by creator on talk page. Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing using the term "ICT" has ever had any real-world relevance outside its own self-centred ivory tower of UK low-end academia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ICT is overtaking IT as the term of choice in schools, but that doesn't get round the fact that this article is entirely unsourced waffle. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Van Halen discography. Courcelles 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Van Halen projects

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

Composed almost entirely of unreliable sources. Any important projects can be mentioned in Van Halen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a paragraph into Van Halen discography. It is noteworthy that VH has so much unreleased stuff, including whole albums, and at least some of it is sourced. But I agree that the full list of all tracks and so on is excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Van Halen discography as suggested by Starblind. Some of this stuff is actually verifiable but there is no call for a separate article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 21 December 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) 05:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclescheme

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

No significant coverage shown, hard to find any via google. Does not seem like a notable company, but A7 is questionable here because there's one link. — Timneu22 · talk 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we need two instances of such coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclescheme were the UK's fastest growing privately owned company last year, with a turnover in excess of £25m... The directors met with PM David Cameron last week to discuss, amongst other things, the success of the business, and has received backing from Sir Richard Branson. It is a notable company in the UK with large press coverage, ranging from National newspapers to bike industry discussion forums. It also has notable clients such as Sainsbury's, ASDA, the BBC, IBM, a large number of the UK's Police Authorities, Local Councils and NHS Trusts as well as SMEs. As requested, a second reliable source has been added, with more to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksellick (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - It would seem that Cyclescheme, who created the article, and Marksellick are the same person. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see, we have nominated this for deletion because there are no sources to back up your claims. You say "it is notable" but you provide no proof. It is likely that this article will not be deleted if you can provide reliable sources to substantiate the reasons for this company's notability or significance. It's up to you. — Timneu22 · talk 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There also seems to be a clear conflict of interest by you editing this article. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GNews gives some more coverage here and here, which may be enough to tip this over the boundary of WP:CORP. Perhaps we could merge some of it to Cycle to Work scheme (which seriously needs improving anyway). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge: I second the suggestion to redirect to Cycle to Work scheme. If Marksellick's claims can be backed up by reliable sources, I would consider changing my vote. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit of research and created two credible, IMHO, references (actually, I just cut and pasted them in from other areas/articles). There could be some substance here, but I still think step one would be to merge with Cycle to Work scheme and redirect. If the article can be fleshed out in the near future, it might merit its own entry. And, Markselleck, please heed those voicing conflict of interest concerns. If you keep editing in a manner that raises NPOV concerns, you will hurt the article's chances for survival. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:47, 9 December 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. Courcelles 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Clark

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

No evidence that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after severeal searches, [9], I literally can't find a single reliable source about this writer of coffee table books. Interestingly, he may be the same person who claims to have created the phrase "Harvard Beats Yale 29-29" [10]. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant books. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 29 December 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. As no case was made for a merger, I have deleted the article and re-created it as a redirect to Consensus decision-making. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming consensus

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

This is original research. Neither of the cited sources actually use the term overwhelming consensus edit: and I can't find any sources that describe it as a logical fallacy. They are both examples of it that the author has incorporated into the article. The only relevant google result that I found is this comment in a Media Matters piece (beginning "I've heard the term..."). Comments are not reliable sources. Other relevant sources are media talking about the overwhelming consensus about global warming (as opposed to the supposed logical fallacy that is the subject of this article).--Chaser (away) - talk 16:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "overwhelming consensus" is found several places in Wikipedia used as a logical fallacy argument and they refer to the sources quoted in this article. The intent was to link these fallacious arguments in the articles to this page. AshforkAZ (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That means there is original research elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's not a good reason to base an entire article on that original research.--Chaser (away) - talk 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Consensus decision-making, as a content fork. There's no reason that we need a separate article on different kinds of consensus, or consensus with different adjectives preceding it. We don't need articles on Borderline consensus or Weak consensus or No consensus or Unanimous consensus. This can all be covered at Consensus decision-making. Also, there is no evidence that this particular phrase is a neologism which is exclusive to the creationism debate, as this article currently implies. SnottyWong ^confer 19:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Snottywong. —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as currently written suggests that "overwhelming consensus" is an example of Argumentum ad populum, also known as the Bandwagon effect, but it offers no reliable secondary sources to this effect. Given both the lack of verifiability and the fork concerns, deletion or redirection seems appropriate. But if the redirection route is followed, is the proper target Consensus decision-making or Argumentum ad populum? I am more or less convinced by Snottywong's arguments for the former, but perhaps we should entertain arguments for the latter as well? Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note the difference between the fact that there can be an 'overwhelming consensus' on some topic and trying to use that 'overwhelming consensus' as an argumentum ad populum to coerce others to conform. AshforkAZ (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Important, perhaps; discussed in reliable secondary sources, not so much. See WP:But it's true! Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is used (with variations such as overwhelming majority, overwhelmingly accepted) as argumentum ad populum in the following Wikipedia pages. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That may well be true, but you still need reliable sources saying that this concept constitutes a logical fallacy. Your instinct to create an article to explain something that needs explaining on many pages is the correct one. But you need reliable sources to back it up. Part of the issue here may have been my unclear nomination, so I've edited to hopefully clarify it.--Chaser (away) - talk 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds like a good option to me. No one else here advocates deletion rather than simply redirecting it, although AshforkAZ seems to still want to keep it, so the AFD should stay open.--Chaser (away) - talk 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to make sure I understand the main author perfectly clearly. The idea is that an "overwhelming consensus" is a fallacy because, after all, it could be the case that they are all wrong. That sounds plausible as a form of argument ad populum. But then the author wants to include the overwhelming consensus of scientists on the subject of evolution, and say it's a fallacy? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all. Scientists go through a valid process to obtain their knowledge. That makes a consensus among them a valid reason to believe the truth of a claim. Would it be a fallacy to conclude that the sun will come up tomorrow based on the fact that it came up the day before, and the day before , and the day before because, after all, there could be an apocalypse? Dumb.Greg Bard (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no doubt that there is 'overwhelming consensus' on evolution (and other topics), it is not valid logic to use that consensus as an argumentum ad populum to coerce someone to agree. A person should choose to accept a position based on evidence, not on what has the most votes. _AshforkAZ (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to coerce anyone. However, an overwhelming consensus of scientists (who do rely entirely on evidence btw) should compel you to accept the position. That's not a fallacy at all. This is just another example of how religion turns people's brains into mush. What logical reason is there not to accept the claim of an overwhelming consensus of scientists?Greg Bard (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who allows an "overwhelming consensus" to compel them to accept anything, even in science, is a fool. Science does not work that way. Logical thinking does not work that way. To compel = coercion. Persuasion, based on logic, is completely different. _AshforkAZ (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it outside, both of you. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Gregbard, your point may have something to do with the absence of reliable sources to support the contentions made in this article.--Chaser (away) - talk 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.Greg Bard (talk) 02:54, 10 December 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) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecily Byk

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

Delete. Not really "notable." Byk appears to be seriously involved in painting and the illustration here, if hers, is impressive. But nothing in the article suggests anything but ordinary achievement. Normal arts education. Girl Scout catalog doesn't really seem enough, assuming it is true. Not every person who supports themselves in art (a difficult job) is notable. Unusual, maybe, but solid awards and display in MOMA or Smithsonian or something, is needed for notability. Current article shows none of this. Student7 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference for Girl Scout catalog could not be located, so sentence has been deleted. Page has been revised with additional references to put emphasis on Byk as a notable artist who has been winning awards in recent years. Johnson & Johnson One Person Show indicates she is acknowledged in area of corporate art, and the Garden State annuals are highly competitive. Unlike other leading New Jersey painters, Byk has little apparent interest in self-promotion, which certainly makes her unique but limits reference sources. Pepso2 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talented, but in encyclopedic context no more notable than the thousands of other working illustrators out there. The only hint of notability was the unsourced claim that she contributed an illustration to a girl scout catalog, but that was (quite rightly) removed as unverifiable and in my opinion wouldn't be enough even if it's true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: More references have been added to Cecily Byk. Pepso2 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Varanasi bombing

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS; small, insignificant event with no major deaths involved. Per my knowledge, incidents with such small magnitude are not kept here and its unlikely that this particular event will have any lasting significance. Mar4d (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The incident while minor, is notable in that it is mentioned by multiple news organizations. Try googling and you will know what i am talking about. This is the only criteria for inclusion for an incident or person, that i'm aware of. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 15:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has recieved coverage in some RS, but that still doesn't overlook the fact that it is a relatively minor incident which will hardly have as much lasting significance and therefore deserve a seperate article. I recall some Iraq articles being taken to AfD's before which had death tolls exceeding well over 20-30 and there was some debate of what should be published. This event is indeed minor and WP:NOTNEWS definitely, and largely applies in this case (..routine news, recent development, timely news subject etc.) The sheer magnitude of the attack itself compromises its significance and does not make it any more important than a regular breaking-news. Having a seperate article for this would perhaps be a tad bit too far; any information in here should best be merged somewhere else, preferably to the Indian Mujahideen page or Terrorism in India; Mar4d (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale for proposing this for deletion, WP:NOTNEWS, applies better to articles which do not meet the WP:GNG. This article does meet those guidelines. It is a bombing during the best-known religious service in the holiest city of Hinduism. Reliable sources everywhere have reported this, more reliable sources are going to report every aspect of the investigation, and every sociology student in every university in the world who studies violence in India is going to be aware that this event happened. Mar4d's comparison of this event to Iraq is offensive because Varanasi is not a war zone; I would ask commenters in peaceful cities to consider whether it would be notable if the most prominent religious service near them were bombed by terrorists and the same death toll occurred, and the media had the same response. Blue Rasberry 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comparing this to Iraq; the point I was trying to make is that I am not aware of any solid consensus on whether articles should be made on such small incidents, no matter how tragic they are. In the case of India, there have been bombings there that have been much more severe. This particular incident caused no major damage or toll for that matter, and I don't see why instead of being merged into a suitable place, it should have its own article. It's the relative significance that is being questioned here. Mar4d (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To add to what Rasberry has already pointed out, WP:NOTNEWS is very clear that it considers "enduring notability" and excludes "routine news reports". A terrorist attack is certainly "not routine". A violent incedent in someother part of the world, depending on how much it matters to you, may or may not qualify as important. You need to judge each event individually before applying NOTNEWS. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not routine news by any stretch of imagination. fortunately Varanasi is not NWFP where these incidents happen on an almost daily basis.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what world the nominator lives in, but here a terrorist attack is not "routine news" in any way. ----Divebomb is not British 15:33, 12 December 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. Courcelles 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke E. Digglera

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

Unsourced BLP. Has been tagged for 2 years. A search found multiple blogs, Wiki-mirrors and non-independent reviews. No WP:RS to meet WP:BIO Wolfstorm000 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first I though the name would reveal it was a hoax, but its not. He's probably borderline at best.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Updating my vote to delete. Someone else please opine so this can be closed soon.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching, can not find any reputable sources indicating notability. I agree with Milowent -- ManicSpider (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playa (band). He was one of their members, but I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a solo artist. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:17, 28 December 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) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wali Mohammed (Guantanamo detainee 560)

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

completely fails WP:BIO; covered only by primary sources in a routine fashion. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. The sources are basically either primary sources from the administrative review of the subject's detention at Guantanamo, or coverage where the subject is included as part of coverage of every single Guantanamo detainee. I note that there is one statement in the article that might lead me to believe that the subject is notable: "One witness had told the Americans that Mohammed had once been Afghanistan's transportation minister." If there is good reason to believe that Mohammed actually had been the Minister of Transportation of Afghanistan, that would make me think he was notable. However, the source for this sentence is a broken link to WTOP-FM's web site, and I don't know whether this unidentified witness is someone who knew what they were talking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:49, 9 December 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) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Foschi

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ACTOR. NW (Talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I'm not seeing enough sourcing to show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:49, 14 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Roche (journalist)

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

We don't seem to have a WP:JOURNALIST, but I see evidence that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 14:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: this article was started in '07 as Frank Roche by User:Johnoleary1, who has been dormant since then; at some later point it had information about a second Frank Roche added to it, so when I ran across it I split it into two. The "new" Roche seemed slightly more notable than the original, so I left him at the original name.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 15 December 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 but Elvis has definitely left the building. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Brewer-Giorgio

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

No evidence of the subject meeting WP:AUTHOR. NW (Talk) 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been adding sources, and I believe that she is both widely cited by her successors and originated a significant new concept (that Elvis faked his own death by pointing to specific evidence) as per WP:AUTHOR. ManicSpider (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Agree with ManicSpider. She appears to be a significant figure in the development of a conspiracy theory about Elvis Presley.[11][12]—RJH (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's nutty. Got mixed in with Elvis's death. Everyone wants to write about her (e.g., who is this nut?). That means plenty of reliable source material for a biography on her. Thus, meets WP:GNG and keep. Here's another reference (This one has her name in the article title): Larry McShane (October 23, 1990). "Elvis Lives, Author Brewer-Giorgio Says, and Here's Proof". Daybreak. The Wichita Eagle. p. 6C. Retrieved 26 December 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benson (cartoonist)

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

This article has a terrible history of being abused by members of the LDS church to attack the subject in retaliation for his criticisms of the church. Once all the POV nonsense is removed, we know remarkably little about him. Superficially the subject passes WP:BIO but there is a lack of reliable, independent sources cited, and quite a long history of polemical sources. The article either needs a Heyman-standard rewrite or, and this is the subject's preference expressed via OTRS, removal as more trouble than it's worth. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With due sympathy for the vandalism, Benson is a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists [13], and the subject of substantial coverage throughout his career[14]. He is controversial, and these controversies have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [15][16][17][18][19]. We have an article for every Pulitzer-winning cartoonist since 1971, and all but 3 of the winners since 1940. Deleting the article creates a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of editorial cartooning. There are better remedies for vandalism targets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' What Arxiloxos said. If we need to clean up and patrol this article better, so be it, but that doesn't mean this gentleman is somehow non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Arxiloxos. THF (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Steve Benson, editorial cartoonist for the Arizona Republic and recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize. The wiki bio that is currently up on this website (a bio which I did not create or ask to have created) has historically been targeted by members of the Mormon Church who are upset with my decision to leave that religion. They have repeatedly and viciously altered the bio information, filling it with false, defamatory, invented, libelous and slanderous personal attacks. I have repeatedly asked wiki moderators to monitor and clean up the site but the abuse continues.

I am frustrated and disappointed that this ongoing vandalism has not been reined in and am feeling even more so now, due to the fact that I am now being advised by wiki moderators that I should hope for future edits to be put up by non-Mormon writers who will produce a more accurate biographical sketch. I do not think it is fair or appropriate for me to have to rely on others to clean up this constantly-poisoned and perjurious bio. Nor do I believe it is the proper approach to inform me (as I have been so notified by wiki) that whether or not this constantly-vandalized bio should be maintained must be determined by some kind of vote.

Again, I did not ask that the bio be put up in the first place . Its relentless targeting for barrages of malicious, unsourced, unverified and false accusations is intolerable.

I believe it is entirely reasonable, therefore, for me to respectfully request (as I have done more than once) that the bio be taken down entirely and permanently. Given that the bio has an ongoing history of being vandalized and abused, I do not trust that it will suddenly or in the long-term transform into a platform for accurate personal information about me, my family and my life.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic Phoenix, AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning and organize that by decade so the link can be more direct like Pulitzer_Prize_for_Poetry#1990s. If everything that can be reliably sourced is limited to basically "Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning, 1993: Stephen R. Benson, Arizona Republic" then a single sentence there should be fine. I say delete before redirect so that any "malicious, unsourced, unverified and false accusations" are deleted from this page's history. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect's" proposal is an acceptable and reasonable compromise to me. --Steve Benson, Editorial cartoonist, The Arizona Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there is any question that this individual satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I think that most Pulitzer Prize winners automatically pass the notability bar. The fact that the author himself is requesting the deletion of the article because of frequent vandalism is also a concern, however with all due respect to Steve, the fact that the subject of a BLP has requested the deletion of their article is not really anything that we can or should take into consideration when debating whether an article should be deleted. If you truly have concerns about the vandalism of this article, you may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and/or read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). With that said, I have added the article to my watchlist and I will keep a lookout for vandalism in the future, and I encourage other regular editors to do the same. We have many tools available to us to fight vandals, including page protection (so that anonymous editors can't edit it), blocking vandal user accounts, blocking vandal IP ranges, and more. I fully understand why you would want to have this article deleted, but I feel that we have the tools available to us to ensure that this article stays here unvandalized, and grows into an accurate account of you and your work. After all, deleting the article would mean the Mormons have won, and no one wants that. I'll keep a lookout for you, and feel free to contact me on my talk page (User talk:Snottywong) if you have any concerns about the article in the future. Cheers. SnottyWong ^spout 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He already has contacted OTRS, which is why I have AfD'd the article. This much should be abundantly clear. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I have yet to observe how this unauthorized bio can remain effectively unvandalized. I say that because up to this point, it certainly has not been. Rather, it has relentlessly and viciously been rewritten, added to and polluted with non-factual and libelous assertions/insertions. Unless this website has a reliable, long-term method for protecting the bio from slanderous onslaught, I remain decidedly uncomfortable with leaving it up. I am requesting some workable form of lock and block. If that cannot be done, delete permanently, please. Ask yourself, how would you feel if you were the target of such defamation? --Steve Benson, Editorial cartoonist, Arizona Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I understand why you feel the way you do and can't disagree with you. I'm not sure what you've tried in the past to stop the vandalism, but you may have just not talked to the right people. I have put in a request for semi-protection of the page, which would prevent anonymous users (i.e. users that are not logged in) as well as non-confirmed users (i.e. users that were recently created) from editing the page. If this protection is granted, it will make it much harder for vandals to modify the page. In the event that they figure out how to add more false information, I have the page on my watchlist so I will see the changes, revert them, and request that the vandal user account be blocked. SnottyWong ^babble 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your concerns, interest, follow-up and pledged efforts.

In the past, I was contacted (after having made initial and direct complaint to this site about the bio's continuing vandalization), by a wiki moderator (the first of two), with whom I had several conversations about resolution. I was informed that measures would be taken to cleanly edit the bio back to reality and that special attention would subsequently be paid to keeping the bio from being tampered with--but with no absolute guarantee given that full protection would result.

I am presently working with a second moderator who expresses sympathy with my concerns over the libelous nature of the attacks on the bio; who agrees with my complaints and suggested remedies; who has urged patience; who advises me that they do not have the final say on this matter; and who, in the meantime, says they are trying to satisfactorily resolve the problem.

Through this period of attack and re-attack, I have made direct complaints, per protocol, to this site as I have become aware of the vandalism. But the problems have again flared up and I am concerned over whether they will, in fact, be stopped.

I would appreciate (and,frankly, expect) serious proactive measures to be taken by wiki to prevent this slanderous and defamatory abuse from continuing.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Ok, the semi-protection request has been granted. It will expire in March 2011, and if the vandalism starts back up again we can always request semi-protection for a longer period of time or indefinitely. Anonymous users and new users (less than 4 days old or less than 10 edits) can no longer edit this article. SnottyWong ^yak 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for taking action. I hope that what is described as "semi-protection" translates into effective long-term protection.

Your attention to this vexing problem is appreciated.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonnist The Arizona Republic

Thank you, JzG and Snotty, for taking the initiative on getting long-term protection for this article. I have taken a shot at adding sourced content about Mr. Benson's distinguished career and notable public controversies. Comments and appropriate revisions are, of course, invited.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, as well.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Keep -- BUT, this article needs to be watched very carefully because there have been some libelous edits. I'm an administrator, and I'm willing to aggressively revert or block users, or if necessary put temporary full protection on the article if anything improper arises. I am also willing to take potentially libelous material to oversight and delete such material from this page's edit history if appropriate. I have a lot of things on my watchlist, so I might not see every problem, but anyone should feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. COGDEN 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your oversight and willigness to intervene aggressively as needed to weed out and purge libelous material.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Comment - as an oversighter, I was called in to address some egregious violations of our BLP policy and my immediate reaction was to want to raze this article to the ground; kill it with fire. There were dozens of edits, lasting a very long time indeed, that could only have been done with malice intent - Alison ^❤ 07:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And fact that it cited sources (i.e., it wasn't an "unreferenced BLP") was of course meaningless against one or more determined vandals. Alison, you probably know this, why aren't we limiting BLP edits to registered confirmed accounts? It won't screen out all, but it will screen out many of these people, leaving us with the worst cases like this one to deal with.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect & protect: to Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning. Whilst the topic may, minimally, meet WP:CREATIVE, he is not so obviously famous, nor the material on him so extensive, that it is reasonable to ignore his request for deletion -- especially when a redirect target, containing information to his main reason for prominence, is readily available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- My ultimate preference would be deletion, redirection and protection. That appears to me the most effective and perhaps the least complicated approach. I did not seek or authorize this bio placement in the first place and its continual, malicious and ad hominem content change has been a source of ongoing frustration and concern for me (as I sense has been understood during the course of this discussion by participants involved in the dialogue).

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Repubic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but actively protect - Benson is clearly notable, so there's no basis for removing the article. The Pullitzer is conformation of notability, not the reason for it; the reason is his body of work. However, we absolutely must enforce WP:BLP, with no excuses. If the semi-protection doesn't work, I recommend indefinite Full Protection. This article is not being actively worked on, so the overhead of occasionally asking an administrator to make a change requested on the talk page is going to be minor in comparison to the BLP violation risk. I believe that being fully locked down is sufficient to assuage the subject's very reasonable concerns with compromising on the content of Wikipedia. Dylan Flaherty 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is clearly a justifiable basis for removing the bio if it cannot be reliably protected from continued libelous alteration. I would agree that it can remain up, but only if there is full protection from the kind of malicious falsification that it has regularly been subjected to. In the past, there has not been such a safeguard in place and, as a result, the bio has been the target of continual slanderous attack. Please fix it or nix it.

Thanks you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you can sue the vandals, of course, but that would be a herculean effort. back before wikipedia was big, attack blogs and (X)sucks.com websites were the way people were smeared. in your case, you've raised your profile enough (among wikipedians) that you're more safe having an article than not having one, because if you didn't, the vandals will go elsewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep as per Arxiloxos. Presuming the editor claiming to be the subject is, deletion is never the proper method of avoiding vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If continued vandalism of the bio cannot be avoided or effectively firewalled against, then deletion, in my opinion, is a proper approach for dealing with the problem; otherwise, the problem continues here. Yes, the vandals may go elsewhere if wiki takes down the bio, but at least the vandals are no longer able to continue their libelous assaults on this site.

In the past, when vandals were adulterating the bio (and, in response, limited efforts were being made by wiki to thwart such attacks), I began receiving emails from anonymous individuals whom I suspected harbored malicious intent, urging me to put up by own bio on this site. I refused to do so (and did not answer their communications), believing it was possible they were simply wanting to gain access by subterfuge to my own authored bio with the intent to mess with it.

In short, there has been an ongoing and relentless effort to infect the bio in question with slanderous claims--an effort which I suspect will continue. Therefore, deletion is an option that I believe should be seriously considered and ultimately utilized if wiki cannot stop the vandalism.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long term protection is the solution for the problems that this bio has had, not deletion. Notability per wikipedia's notability guidelines is clear and not marginal. I note the recent protection is the first time this has happened to the article and should along with the pledges above to monitor the article prevent problems from recurring. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please then lock and block it against continuous vandal assault. If that cannot or will not be done, then please delete it.

I do not feel that I should be expected to tolerate this kind of ongoing libel and unfounded attack which has persisted for some time and about which I have lodged understandable, polite and protocol-followed complaint--all the while requesting effective remedial action.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article says "Benson was awarded the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning". Yeah, that sounds like a pretty notable person in his field. Dream Focus 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets inclusion standards. I am entirely sympathetic to Mr Benson's entirely legitimate concerns over vandalism, and for that reason I will add myself to the list of people who will watchlist the page and actively monitor for inappropriate editing. Thparkth (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- wiki, in my view, has a serious and unavoidable responsibility to safeguard its platforms against libelous misuse. It is troubling to me that as a matter of apparent practice wiki makes allowance and provides opportunity for anonymous individuals to edit, change, and even warp the writings of someone else.

If wiki is going to permit this secretive editing and changing of what others author here, then wiki has a grave responsibility to clean up malicious "rewrites" when they occur and to thereafter protect the articles against such abuse in the future.

Better yet, I think that when libelous assaults by shadowy attack dogs (assaults which are obviously designed to harm the reputation and character of those whom they target through the insertion of patently false information) are spotted and reported, wiki should permanently freeze the article under siege (after purging it of its invented content), so that it cannot be viciously manipulated in the future.

Otherwise, simply monitoring the article under assault will not solve the problem--given that the article (as history has clearly shown in this case) will likely remain constantly under siege and thus will repeatedly require revision back to reality.

Lock it and block it, once and for all, please.

I didn't want this bio up here in the first place but now that it is, I request that it be soundly secured--and if not soundly secured, then promptly deleted.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Benson,

If the outcome of this deletion discussion is that we should keep the article, which seems possible at the moment, I would ask you to give the new arrangement a chance. The typical anonymous vandal will not be able to edit the page, and you have a good number of experienced editors watching out for any inappropriate additions. Yes, we may have to remain vigilant forever, but that's pretty much what we do. If the problems continue, there are other means available to give the article even stronger protection.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I hope you are correct in your assurance that under the new arrangement "the typical anonymous vandal will not be able to edit the page." I'm concerned, as I am sure you are too, with the atypical anonymous vandal.

I will, however, give it a chance (assuming the article is retained), and I do appreciate the collective willingness here to remain vigilante.

If, however, the firewall is breached in the future, then Plan DP: Delete, Please.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having won a Pulitzer is significant enough for notability. As there are issues regarding vandalism, we can indefinitely semi-protect the page to prevent unregistered or new users from editing it, or we could use pending changes to ensure that all edits are reviewed before being posted to the public. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Semi-protection is not what I am looking or hoping for.

If forced to choose, I'd prefer your second option of ensuring that all edits are reviewed before being publicly posted (perhaps combined with the first approach of preventing unregistered or new users from editing the bio--if such a duo counter-measure is possible).

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Pulitzer Prize awardee/winner speaks for notability.Vonjob944 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Pontificalibus (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

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

This article is a fork of United States diplomatic cables leak and was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was soon converted to a redirect. Discussion about having this fork was discussed at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak but no consensus developed for the split-off. It has been argued that the parent article is becoming too large (169kb prior to the split-off) and one editor therefore made the unilateral decision to reinstate the article fork with the amazing edit commentary "Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control), indicating some sort of emergency procedure having to be made, assumedly as the rationale for omitting to obtain a mandate from other editors. It should also be mentioned that there are strongly conflicting opinions on the parent article's talk page about what strategies to pursue in going forward covering the ongoing diplomatic cables leak situation. I would like to point out that adding one more layer for the casual user to have to click makes the information on this issue increasingly less available. Already we have the situation that with the current diplomatic leak story being daily in the news headlines across the globe, 20 times as many people only go to the WikiLeaks page as go on to United States diplomatic cables leak (500k hits vs 25k hits). That should raise a huge warning sign that continued diffusing this information comes at a considerable cost. meco (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to prose or change the focus of the contents. Before splitting, the parent article was 166,177 bytes and growing exponentially, as only 1000 out of more than 250,000 documents had been released to date. Clearly, something needed to be done, and discussion on the page with various editors, including User:Nergaal, User:Lihaas, and others, show that there is a concern for readability and management of a random list of contents growing exponentially, a herding cats problem with no end in sight. After the split, the article is now a healthy 44,000 bytes, and while it needs a great deal of work and improvement, it is actually readable. Meco has all but ignored the discussion on the talk page, preferring to keep expanding a 166,000 byte document without any regard to what other editors are saying to him on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to prose or change the focus of the contents. Although this move was not yet agreed upon by other editors, it does not change the fact that it was done with the intent of compliance with general Wikipedia guidelines regarding article length. Furthermore, this also does not constitute a reasonable argument for having the move reverted until consensus has been agreed upon, especially while other options are available for handling the child content. Exercising good judgement is encouraged on Wikipedia, and the move to separate the articles arguably has an immediate impact of making the related content more accessible to the general public, especially to users who may find the enormous scope of the former length of the parent unmanageable, or others wishing to contribute to or disseminate related content while utilizing a narrowband internet connection. It's my own personal opinion and recommendation that the separation remain, and the proposal for deletion of this article be removed. Further talk of organizing this child article can be proposed on the child article's talk page. To revert the change at this point, given the enormous priority and status of this article as a major current event, would ultimately prove to be counter-productive and confusing to readers, and serve no other purpose than to uphold bureaucratic procedures that undermine Wikipedia's community as adhering to common sense principles. --Glitch82 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a valid reason to delete. Claiming that the info needs to be kept in what would be an excessively long main article in order for people to find it is not a valid rationale. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason for deletion. Having this kind of detailed sub-articles is the best way to maintain both depth of coverage and readability. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haven't heard any better proposal so far. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significantly noteworthy and extremely worth of its own, separate, independent, and very well sourced and referenced page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be an article discussing the contents, in addition to the article giving the history of the source, releasing, publication, reactions, and governmental retribution against Assange. The text of the cables might be provided at Wikisource, unless that could be prosecuted as "espionage" on the same basis US politicians want Assange prosecuted. (This is an observation and clearly not a legal threat). Edison (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But also give the main article a significantly condensed version of this. If not possible, then merge with United States diplomatic cables leak‎ - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I move to speedy keep the article, i.e. withdrawing my nominations. I see that we can work this out in constructive ways without going through this AfD which also doesn't seem to be going in any other direction anyway. __meco (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of material. In fact, this may merit more region-specific forks as more cables are released... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the person who performed (and subsequently undid) the initial split. The concerns some contributors raised over the timeliness of splitting this content were certainly compelling to me, but I personally foresee the fork as being an inevitable eventuality that will receive resounding support once the public interest dies down. Ultimately, either way, redirection would be preferable over deletion and so this should be handled at an editorial level. — C M B J 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7) by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (Non-admin closure) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violet The Cannibal

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

Non-notable musician. No significant coverage of this musician in any reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of importance. She may be associated with some marginally notable people, but that doesn't mean she needs her own article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:43, 8 December 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. If any sysop elsewhere wants this for their proejct, just let me know, and I'll gladly put it somewhere for a transwiki. Courcelles 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Rules of the Chessie System

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

Not Notable and unsourced. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and not encyclopedic. This is material that appears in training manuals for new railroaders, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be contrary to WP:NOT as a listing of signals used internally by a private company, and less encyclopedic than, say highway signs, or other signals used by the general public. If the present signal system of this railroad is encyclopedic without satisfying the GNG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then every internal system of rules or signals, basically every employee handbook of every major company and organization would be eligible for an article. Certainly the rulebook of every railroad in history as it related to signalling would be equally eligible for an article (Such as historic Illinois Central: Five long whistle sounds, followed by ten short whistle sounds: Flagman for train number 10 may return from the North. Etc, on and on.). That said, it is a very nice looking article. Edison (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent, but think through transwiki options before deletion - needs sourcing, obviously. It might be encyclopedic in the sense that it would be eligible for an Encyclopedia of Rail? In which case it would have a place in Wikipedia. Not everything here has to be suitable for Britannica! If not suitable for here, would there be a home for it in Wikibooks, which does accept manual-like material? TheGrappler (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any encyclopedia of rail I've seen; this is purely instruction manual material. I actually have some CSX signal manuals, and this looks exactly like them. That itself may be a problem; there may be copyright issues, though it's mostly basic information and simple diagrams that may not meet the threshold for copyright eligibility. Regardless, this isn't material for or from an encyclopedia. The fact that there's no other articles with carrier-specific signal rules tells me that there's agreement on that.oknazevad (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take your word for it. I can't see how this would be a copyvio (I think you're right re threshold). I suspect this belongs as a transwiki to Wikibooks, as instruction-manual material? TheGrappler (talk) 22:49, 15 December 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. L Faraone 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi assassination in popular culture

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

Per WP:IPC. Lacks reliable sources and contains only two entriess. PCPP (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I can think of three more films based on the assasination, but this belongs in the assassination article as a small para--Sodabottle (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge in Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Deletion is not compatible with merger for legal licensing reasons - see WP:MAD. There's more to be said on this topic. For example, a brief search immediately tells us that the award-winning movie The Terrorist was inspired by this incident and yet the current draft of the article says nothing of this. The topic therefore needs more work in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would disrupt this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 12 December 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite aside from the baroque nature of one of these idiotic "X in popular culture" articles for an assassination, the main assassination article is not overly large. Beyond that, this article bumps up against WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopaedic subject --...Captain......Tälk tö me 04:36, 21 December 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETTV Yoyo

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

Wrong redirect--LTSC1980 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu (cocktail)

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

Neologism. Does not seem to be used anywhere, by anyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW source of this nomination is wikt:WT:RFV#Pikachu. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, I like exotic drinks myself, and that's not a bad-looking one (in fact its color scheme matches Starblind's signature!); but I can find no evidence that this drink, or its creator, has been mentioned in any reliable sources. The article does include a citation (without a link) to a November 1 2010 "interview" in Le Devoir, but my searches at the paper's webpage didn't come up with anything, and I doubt that a single mention of the drink in a single article would be enough (my view might change if the article said something like "the drink has taken Montreal by storm and is now served all over town").--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists and it has newspaper coverage: [20]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for finding that cite. But the Arizona-based martini-glass drink described in this source appears to be quite different from the long drink in a highball glass described in the article as originating in Montreal: the only element in common seems to be sake. I'm willing to have my mind changed (especially after I drink a couple of Pikachus), but so far I don't think this is evidence that there really is a definable, notable drink by this name.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:54, 9 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Michalos

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, WP:WEB and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero Google News hits for "James Michalos", "Plastic Snow" or "Rock n Rolling Snowman". If the song actually does well in the charts, then that might become notable enough for its own article. Proposed deletion removed without explanation by WP:Single purpose account. Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I don't understand how this has been rated as 50/1 by Ladbrokes when it has attracted zero coverage in GNews, but if someone thinks it's got a shot at no. 1, then there's a reasonable chance they'll make the Top 40. WP:CRYSTAL says we don't have articles based on speculation, but there's no harm keeping the article in userspace should the single get somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to speculation point, have added past success in other industries, notably success in theatre that has already happened and demonstrates Mr Michalos' notability, with the speculative element re potential success reduced to one final paragraph that will undoubtably need editing one way or another later this month.
News coverage for the song has been mainly radio so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityLawyer (talk • contribs) 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His career in theatre may count towards notability with or without this single, but you're going about it the wrong way. You have to demonstrate that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable third-party sources. Simply listing previous productions he's been involved in isn't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Googled and did find online coverage. Article about it here http://www.entsweb.co.uk/ TEACHER’S ROCKING SNOWMAN SONG IS THE BEST BET FOR CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE Ladbrokes offers 50-1 on song recorded for just £100 reaching the top spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Entsweb.co.uk is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed site, and is therefore not a WP:Reliable source. Invitrovanitas (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song is listed in Yahoos Top 10 Christmas Contenders list
- http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/hot_new_tunes/3180/christmas-chart-contenders/;_ylt=AmX4Qp6tc4WCob1p6EGF97QqFCYv?page=3#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And featured in the Telegraph
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/8202014/Teachers-snowman-song-is-Christmas-number-one-contender.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 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, Sandstein 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far from a "contender for Christmas number 1", the song has in fact missed the top 100 completely and in the absence of exceptional coverage is therefore not notable. I have no idea what the people who thought this had a genuine shot at Christmas number 1 were smoking..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spain (surname). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with surname Spain

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

Unencyclopedic. Wiki is not a social networking site. Unmaintainable list (They will be wanting a list of everyone called Smith next.) Kudpung (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis has nothing to do with social networking; this is about notable historical facts and people. The Spain surname, and all of it's derivatives, is very common and there are several notables in history and society, some who have articles about them here on wikipedia, that are not indexed/found when searching the word Spain or the words Spain Surname. When you type that in you'll get all kinds of surnames of Spanish origin. Spain surname is a hard search, so I was just trying to make it easier. I added the article link to the Spain (disambiguation) page for this reason. That's my reason for doing it. I was looking for information on the surname, which is not mine by the way - I was curious. Then I notice that this surname and derivatives have significant genealogical search engine results. I also noticed the notability factor in many of the bios that I read. I only have three listed, but more are coming. We're talking notables from European and America history. The surname has as much significance as any other surname that has a page/list on wikipedia, such as Williams.

Furthermore, the list and surname article are just starts. There is an entire evolutionary history behind the surname which is another reason why I thought making the two articles was appropriate. We're talking more than 900 years on two continents. Now, when people with Spain, and derived, surnames do a search engine search, they can come across these two articles and add on to information.

Wikipedia is an idol hobby I have that I get caught up in at a whims notice. I thought the whole idea of Wikipedia was to make the discovery of unknown information easier. I saw a need and tried to fulfill it. I really don't comprehend where you get the social networking idea from. Bab-a-lot (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your explanation above, I fully realise that you created this list in good faith. However, the inherent problem is that with Wiki being a freely collaborative site, everyone named Spain will be adding themselves to it, most likely linking to their FaceBook, blogs, and corporate sites, and it keeps whole teams of volunteers WP:NPP and WP:Recent changes busy round the clock deleting them all. A list of names such as Spain is untenable.Kudpung (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your logic. I offered a link above to the Williams (surname) page where there is also a link to a list of people with the Williams suname. People aren't going to add themselves, because it will be clear to anyone who wants to contribute that it's designated for notables only. There are similar pages, and name lists pages of other surnames where there is not an influx of random people adding their own names. It's reserved for notables only. Bab-a-lot (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or speedy delete) unencyclopedic, we already have Spain (surname), notable people with that surname should be there. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly merge to Spain (surname) if the list doesn't get long enough to justify a standalone article). It is usual practice to create lists of people with certain surnames if a lot of people share that surname and a complete list is too long to fit in the article on that surname, as can be seen in this list of articles with similar titles (to answer the nominator's question, List of people with surname Smith already exists). Keeping a list of people with a shared surname for navigation/disambiguation purposes is perfectly encyclopedic. The fact that non-notable people could add themselves to the list is irrelevant, as the same is true of just about any disambiguation page involving people, list of school alumni etc. Hut 8.5 11:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree. Bab-a-lot (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spain (surname). I see no reason why this relatively short list should be sepperated from the surname page. Generally the surname pages include such lists.4meter4 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. Great idea! Bab-a-lot (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.

-- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these are to be deleted, especially if the name lists will not be transferred to the (surname) article page. You will make looking for people with those surnames a hard, nearly impossible, search.Bab-a-lot (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spain (surname) standard disambiguation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there's a need for this, as wikipedia has already established many, many lists "of people with surname (X)". This one is no different than any other.ArchieOof (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spain (surname). While I find the appeal of articles with lists of people with the same surname to be inexplicable, there appears to be an established convention within Wikipaedia to allow them. Further more, one can readily see the utility (hence, notability) of such pages to genealogists. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:19, 11 December 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. Courcelles 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Tech

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

Unsourced page, was previously notoriously poorly sourced for years, zero demonstration of significant coverage in WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:23, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:09, 15 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete No secondary sources means failing in WP:NOTEThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle Kidoodle

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

no indication of notability. noq (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references the article has right now are pretty unreliable, but there are some good sources to be found: [21] [22] Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD. [23] Read the titles and summaries of the first few entries. Notable? Yeah, pretty obviously so. Dream Focus 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the links in gnews are behind paywalls, but the volume of them that appear to have Noodle Kidoodle as the subject matter of the articles is significant. Clearly this is a large venture that gets significant coverage for its business activities. With 60 stores nationwide (verifiable[24]) it would be hard to make the argument that it's not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hold Everything! A 60-store chain in the U.S. is almost definitely notable, and legitimate available sourcing [25] shows that to be the case here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:14, 13 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bri Fantabulous

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

Someone tagged this article yesterday as a hoax, and while I disagree with that, I also think this person does not pass WP:AUTHOR. She is a self-published author whose name doesn't return any Google hits except for the usual suspects. No Google Books hits either. (The article also appears to have been created by an SPA.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. I tagged it as a hoax, and I'm not convinced its not, as some of the sources seem to be made up (see the talk page for details). Aboutmovies (talk) 03:38, 9 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nationalist Nepalese (UNN)

Please check a log of the search of this name. The founders and the organization is searched by the entire world. It deserves to be on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.113.60 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable non profit advocacy organization. Competely non-npov, weakly referenced (if at all). I found zero gnews hits and zero gscholar hits in my attempt to cleanup and reference the article. 7 07:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one passing mention at Gnews [26]. Google search finds mostly self-referential items. The article is full of unsourced and unlikely claims. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 15 December 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. Courcelles 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inbetween (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Fixer23 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 23 November 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) 00:12, 29 November 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, Krakatoa Katie 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it charted, I added some references. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not much to work with but it achieved a small amount of notability and is therefore eligible for a basic stub article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 14 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLATT Books

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

parent article deleted for non-notability at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BLATT , also fails NN Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 November 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, Sandstein 06:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Absolutely no outside coverage found at Google or Google News. Can't even find it on Amazon. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 15 December 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. Courcelles 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLATT Fest

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

parent article deleted for non-notability at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BLATT , also fails NN Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 November 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, Sandstein 06:41, 8 December 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. Sources were provided, and no other arguments made for over a week. L Faraone 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Fund Organization

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

fails WP:ORG. whilst coverage verifies its existence it's not indepth. [27] LibStar (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing for Asia-based not-for-profits is always a difficult issue, as their activites may be notable to tens of thousands of people without necessarily receiving media coverage in Western or English-speaking sources (a constant problem arising from LibStar's conscientious and much-needed nominations of many such articles). While Google searches have been unable to yield any significant coverage in reliable English sources, they have yielded such a large quantity of trivial mentions and non-independent sources (including references to a reasonably generous budget) as to convince me that its non-English notability may nevertheless be sufficient to justify an article. (See WP:BIAS.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide sources then, you are assuming they exist and yet little can be found. this organisation is based in Singapore where English is one of the main languages. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In cases like this the onus is reversed; once a reason is established to suspect that unavailable sources exist, a deletion should only be endorsed after someone has taken reasonable steps to verify such sources DON'T exist, which in this case would amount to an enquiry or search of Singaporean news outlets, which as far as I know aren't indexed on Google. See WP:FAILN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your alleged rule is wrong. We don't care if an organization does amazing things for millions of people. If we can't identify any third-party, independent sources, then we do not keep the article, full stop. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a promotional opportunity for non-profits, and notability requires verifiable evidence, not merely handwaving and optimistic assertions that surely some sources exist. If you want this article kept, I suggest that you find a way to produce at least one independent, third-party source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be clear, you're accepting that WP:FAILN is current Wikipedia policy, and that I have presented it correctly, but you're suggesting it should be revised or ignored in this case. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying that you've misunderstood FAILN, which says: "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging...[or] deleting." NB that it says "cannot be found", rather than "cannot be imagined, speculated, or assumed to exist". The onus is not reversed; if challenged, sources must actually be produced. Notability requires verifiable evidence (on the same page as FAILN) is very relevant to the situation here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:07, 22 November 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) 00:24, 29 November 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, Sandstein 06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Travis Jeppesen. There's not much here, either interest or content of the article, no third-party refs, so I'll use a little admin discretion. - Krakatoa Katie 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victims (novel)

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

notability-tagged for two years, it's not Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 November 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, Sandstein 06:37, 8 December 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. Courcelles 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for the Education of Women of Africa

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

fails WP:ORG. no coverage in gnews [28]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per source.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how this meets WP:ORG? I could not find multiple indepth sources? LibStar (talk) 02:09, 19 December 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, CTJF83 chat 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent sources. Feezo (Talk) 08:09, 27 December 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) 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Boerebach

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

I believe he fails WP:BIO. yes he's made a TV appearance for his ability to remember music but I don't see substantial coverage. the 4th link supplied is dead, and he only gets 2 gnews hits [29] . Wording like this "Bullies tormented Boerebach throughout his school years, which were followed by several years of unemployment.[1] Despite his difficulties, a positive and inquisitive attitude has led to his successful completion of several TAFE Certificate courses, and A Grade passes in work experience projects" is really not relevant. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added some references--looks like a local did a documentary on him that has received attention. Coverage in magazines in addition to his TV and radio appearances. Try a search on Google web for his name and also for ""Rainman Goes to RocKwiz" to find additional sources. The article is rough, but AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V. There really isn't anything here besides he got bullied and later went on a public-TV game show, neither of which is something one might reasonably expect an encyclopedia to cover. Possible WP:COI issues as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, so with the current sources, you're arguing the subject fails GNG? Seems like he meets the bar to me between articles in magazines and newspapers and an admittedly short documentary covering him. The sources are clearly reliable, and coverage seems pretty significant to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. The primary issue isn't the sources (although they aren't as strong as you seem to think, see below) but notability. A very, very, very small number of people are notable for being on game shows (Ken Jennings and Charles Van Doren are the only two that spring to mind, but there are a few others). This guy isn't even remotely close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the references that Nuujinn has added, the article clearly passes the WP:GNG, i.e. has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What more do you want? Also half the nom appears to be about the wording. If you think the wording is bad or a section is not relevant, remove or refactor it, don't just send the whole article to AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I admire the subject's achievements, especially since I am totally blind and am also autistic, the following facts are telling:
- A Gpoogle News Archive search for "Mark Boerebach" only comes up with two results, one of which is a local newspaper. This is an extraordinarily low level of media coverage, considering that both the quiz show appearance and the documentary were broadcast in 2008. I'm aware that the above search misses some pages, such as "this Courier Mail article and the SBS page (but the latter source doesn't count in my book since it have a connection to the documentary). ThinkBig is not a major magazine.
- Wikipedia does not have an article about the Anchorage International Film Festival, despite the fact that film is generally one of the encyclopedia's strongest areas. Therefore, his documentary's appearance probably does not confer much notability. Additionally, the documentary does not even have an entry on IMDB.
- In short, this person's notability as a quiz contestant does not even compare to people like Ken Jennings and Michael Larson, and the article about his Internet radio station was recently deleted in an AFD discussion. Graham87 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you point to any policy that suggests that the subject of an article must compare favorably to other subjects of articles? Or a policy asserting that a subject's notability hinges upon the notability of a film festival at which a documentary about them appeared? A policy that suggests that a documentary about them must have an entry in IMDB (which is not a reliable source and thus does not confer notability), or that deletion of an article related to the subject diminished their notability? WP:GNG points to significant coverage in reliable sources, are you arguing that the coverage is not significant or the sources not reliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not significant enough and many of the cited sources are too close to the subject or are of local interest. Basically there aren't enough high-quality sources for this person. As for comparisons: I don't mean that the subject's achievements must match those of other quiz show contestants; I'm trying to show the level of coverage required for someone to be notable just *as* a quiz show contestant. Almost every significant film has an entry in IMDB, so the fact that his documentary does not have one is a major concern to me. It seems that the documentary is used to bolster his notability, to show that he did something more interesting than just appear on a quiz show ... and I'm trying to show why the documentary shouldn't necessarily be used for that purpose. Since the article 2PR FM was deleted, that Internet radio station cannot be used to indicate notability. Graham87 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately he isn't notable, just because he may have Asperger syndrome and runs a internet radio station doesn't make him notable. RockWiz is a WP:ONEEVENT and is rather trivial. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, I'm not suggesting that the subject is notable because of his appearance on a quiz show. The subject is a disabled person with an unusual ability, a savant, and that is, I think, why he has attracted attention in the press, and I think that coverage is significant enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Please note, if we can trust the WebCite entries, apparently ZDNet, St George & Sutherland Shire Leader and Penrith had a brief articles about him in 2000-2007, before his appearance on the show. For those reasons, I think WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. The number of google news hits is, as far as I know, not a criterion for notability under WP policy. Yes, I think the documentary counts for establishing notability--SBS is apparently a national broadcasting service, and they aired the documentary. I think they count as a reliable source. I readily acknowledge that if the documentary had never aired, or was only shown at film festivals, it would be a different matter, but that is not the case. That the documentary is not itself notable is not, I think, an issue, as we do not require that sources themselves be notable--there are literally millions of books, articles and journals used as sources on WP that are not themselves notable, but in any case, appearing in WP or IMDB would not establish the documentary's notability because WP consider neither itself nor IMDB reliable sources. Nor do I think the relationship between the subject and the director is an issue, since SBS would be considered the publisher of the information. thinkBIG may not be a major magazine--perhaps I am missing something, but I am unaware of any policy that says that a magazine has to be major to count as a reliable source. The Age is a broadsheet, seems to be reliable enough for this subject. The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader looks to be very local, but I think that's counterbalanced somewhat by the degree of coverage he's received, four articles over 4 years. He's also apparently been interviewed on television and radio. None of the sources are connected to the subject as far as I can tell and there are lots of them, and all of the ones used in the article appear to be reliable. So from my point of view, there's enough evidence that the sufficient sources can be found, if they have not already, to establish notability under GNG, and I'll shut up now and go do some work. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that SBS is a national TV station in Australia, but it's quite a minor one. Also, they broadcasted RocKwiz, so naturally they had an insentive to broadcast the documentary. The ABC has far more clout in Australia, but he is not mentioned anywhere on the ABC website, despite the fact that it has archived almost every story it has broadcast for at least the last decade. Two articles in Australian statewide newspapers (The Age and The Courier-Mail - are not enough for me; ZDNet confers a bit of notability, but I don't think it's enough to get him over the line. Graham87 03:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per bidgee - Satu Suro 03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only a smattering of fairly WP:TABLOID local coverage around WP:ONEEVENT, so little in the way of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: interesting story, sufficient sources, thanks to the work of Nuujinn. Good job. DVdm (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No nead to drag some WP:ESSAYS into this. Please stick with guidelines and policies. DVdm (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIO's on Wikipedia shouldn't be a brief life story since that is what books are for, BIO's should be detailed description on the a well known person, the achievements as well as controversies but should never be a story. Mark Boerebach is just not notable for Wikipedia, if we allowed to keep the Mark Boerebach article, we could have people who have similar type of coverage have an article. I've been in the media a few times in my life, I've been on TV just to name a few but it doesn't make me notable. Bidgee (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, and understand where you are coming from, but can you point to policy supporting your assertions about what biographies here should be? My feeling is that it is a significant achievement for someone with his challenges to start a web based "radio" station, and he does have a pretty unique talent, and both have been covered in the press. Many people are notable for overcoming obstacles in their lives. Also, I'll point out that we already have articles on people with similar coverage, and articles on people with less coverage, even articles on people with no coverage in reliable sources, and that flow is pretty much going to be unaffected by whatever we do here. GNG is pretty straight forward and clear, as is WP:BASIC. Of course you don't have to agree with me, but I think the subject meets both with coverage spanning a number of years from a variety of reliable sources. Also, if you feel that the article should be trimmed back more to "just the facts", I agree with that--my usual approach is to add material and then come back and trim out the excess, but AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I don't think that notability is directly related to number of times having been in the media. Surely Bidgee's notability (or lack thereof) should have no influence upon this subject's notability. We cannot complain about lack of sources, and I just think that this item happens to be sufficiently notable — I guess that's what this inquiry is bound to be about. DVdm (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that starting and running a online station (whether it is radio or TV) doesn't add to the notability nor does the amount Australian music chart he remembers. Having a few news stories (most local newspapers) and a minor documentary (had it been a doco done by the ABC [Australia] or SBS then maybe) also doesn't at to the notability. Most radio presenters who should be far more notable don't have articles since they don't have enough notability except for John Laws and Alan Jones who are undoubted notable. Bidgee (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the notabily of the subject is —de facto— going to be decided on this page. I think that the subject passes wp:GNG, and you don't. Not much to discuss, really... Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, otherwise I would have said keep and not have stated what I have said above. Bidgee (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that according to WP policies, general notability is established when reliable sources provide significant coverage. Bidgee, I'll ask again--you've said "BIO's on Wikipedia shouldn't be a brief life story since that is what books are for, BIO's should be detailed description on the a well known person, the achievements as well as controversies but should never be a story." Can you point to support for that statement in WP policies or guidelines? I agree that the documentary is minor, and I'm willing to concede that SBS is a minor national network, but where in policies or guidelines does it say that such are not reliable sources, not verifiable, or fail to establish notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of this article has edited Wikipedia under several accounts in the past. Please see this ANI discussion, which is how I found Mark Boerebach's article in the first place. Graham87 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been following that discussion. In the interest of full disclosure, if you check his talk pages, you'll note that I've offered to help him, and I found this article the same way as you did. I think it's unfortunate that he's received some fairly brusque handling, but that's understandable given that it took some time to sort out what was happening and what his circumstances are. I have also been following the SPI case, and I believe that both the ANI and SPI have been closed acknowledging both the missteps by the subject and the subject's good faith. Since I work with some folks with mild Asperger's, I'm familiar with the problems they face in social interactions, and I'm not surprised at how things unspooled. That being said, I'm not sure any of this is relevant to the discussion here at this point--could you clarify why you believe his situation as a WP editor is relevant here and now? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was worth noting that discussion here for the sake of transparency. Graham87 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources in significant media outlets, passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage provided is not convincing me that this individual is notable per WP:N. This appears to be a WP:ONEEVENT situation. Also, it appears that someone has been attempting to boost their coverage on Wikipedia recently. Note that 2PR FM (the internet radio station that this person is associated with) has been deleted 4 times so far, with the most recent AfD ending just a few days ago. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong, yes, regarding the subject, we've covered that ground, and Mr. Boerebach has been anointed in the blood of the lamb and absolved, let us pray he sins no more against the church of Jimbo. More to the point, do you see any evidence that he's had any influence on this article? And if not, what relevance does his situation as an editor here have to do with the notability issues here at AFD? And which WP:ONEEVENT do you mean, the founding of the internet station, the initial coverage in the local press about his desire for a job, or the documentary and appearance on RocKwiz? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any hard evidence that he has had an influence on this article, however the article was created by a WP:SPA. See Special:Contributions/Saltless-ocean. Maybe he's just a die-hard Mark Boerebach fan who was angered by the lack of Wikipedia coverage of his favorite 70's-80's pop music internet radio disc jockey? Perhaps Saltless-ocean should be added to the sock investigation just to be safe, since I don't see them at the SPI or ANI discussion. The relevance of the topic is evident at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. As for WP:ONEEVENT, I'm referring to his appearance on the game show, which received some brief local coverage. As far as I can tell, having a desire to get a job is not notable, and purchasing some software to stream music over the internet is not notable (as evidenced by the previous AfD on 2PR FM). I'm not saying that the argument about his notability is black and white, but I happen to fall on the not notable side of the argument. SnottyWong ^confess 22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a right to your opinion. But I will point out that the SPA last edited in 2008, and the article has been substantially retooled since then. You could add Saltless-ocean to the now closed SPI, but I would wonder what the purpose would be, since WP:COI and WP:AUTO related issues can be cleansed, and I think they have been. If you think there are still NPOV issues, we can certainly address them. The interview about the job was local, but a plea for employers to consider people with disabilities, a human interested piece. Purchasing software to stream audio is not notable, but I suggest that coverage for starting an internet based station in ZDNet and a newspaper are. And the coverage regarding the game was somewhat brief, but SBS is a national broadcaster, and was covered by major newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne, and not confined to local news outlets as you contend. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't make a request to add Saltless-ocean to the SPI case, as I agree it would be pointless. However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the notability issue. SnottyWong ^confer 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly fair enough, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 15 December 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. Courcelles 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Pinchers

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

unsourced, subject does not seem to be notable Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no sources, no reliable information, no assertion of notability, no real information. I'd support a speedy on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Edward130603 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability and no sources.--TM 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 14 December 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 Withdrawn It's official; I have the world's worst Google-fu. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lloyd

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

Roles include one-shot characters, recurring character in a short-lived Z-level sitcom, recurring character in a film series without an article, and some very very minor voice acting. Closest thing to a "notable" character is Charlie Calvin in the Santa Clause trilogy, and even there, his role in #3 is only a cameo. My main concern is the outright lack of sources outside IMDb; I have been completely unable to find any biographical info on him, and I feel that the lack of sources outweighs any notability per WP:ENT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep My WP:BEFORE quickly found the one win and 12 nominations as an actor that meet the instructions at WP:ANYBIO.[30] A lack of sources might in some cases be better perhaps taken as a reason to add them,[31] but not delete because someone else has not yet done the work. However, as I am not the nominator, I'll do some work on the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep. Clearly notable per wp notability standards/refs in article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OVH

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

Still not notable. From Wikipedia: Notability: # "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so 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. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OVH is mentioned in every newspaper's reports of Wikileaks developments (quite apart from it being a significant French internet company anyway). --Mervyn (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked it up on Wikipedia and found this page, so I guess it's notable. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reisio, that's the most circular argument I've ever heard! SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This provides significant coverage of the company and other sources show this is not a one-off occurence, demonstrating coverage in multiple sources. The GNG and WP:CORP are met. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are more sources providing more than passing mentions of OVH: [32] [33] [34] SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the coverage is solely about hosting WikiLeaks, that merits only a mention at WikiLeaks, not a full entry. Hairhorn (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but the company is notable enough by itself to have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... you agree, but you don't agree? Notability is based on sources, if there are no sources, notability is hard to come by. (... but if everyone agrees it's notable, then that pretty much settles it, there are no delete votes yet). Hairhorn (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OVH is one of the biggest Webhosts in Europe and the biggest one in France (Too bad this can only be confirmed from netcraft analysis), in 2009 they placed a bid on german webhosting company Strato (that should be a good hint on their size) and last and least there is this Wikileaks thing that's all over the international press. --Mastacheata (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also needs more reliable third party sources. The only ones that qualify are for the Wikileaks things. Blogs and forums are unacceptable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SmartSE. I speculate this deletion proposal is stems in part from it being a French company.--Sum (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, great work assuming good faith. It was nominated for deletion because it had been previously deleted, and had no sources. It's not my job to find those sources. Remember, if something is challenged and no sources turned up the challenged material must be removed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not necessarely a bad faith nomination, and I assume it isn't, it may be just little known to US people. See Template:Globalize/USA.--Sum (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the original author of this page before it's first deletion, nominated on the same grounds by the same user. It's worth pointing out that OVH don't sell to North America, only a handul of European countries - so there's little coverage of it in US media. However, at least one source points to it being one of the largest web hosting providers in the world. As a larger firm than, say, 1&1, I think that makes it more notable than 1&1, not to mention a low number of sources not strictly being grounds for deletion. Though a Google news search for "OVH" shows more than 7 pages, including Gizmodo calling it the second biggest ISP in Europe. --Razakel19 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a major company, quite apart from anything to do with wikileaks. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Sixth largest host of servers on the internet and largest in Europe" makes it quite obviously notable. Besides, plenty of sources are quite easy to come by, even on the internet, if you can read French. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read french. Nor am I required to. It's English Wikipedia. WP:ENGLISH. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From your OWN user page:
    * Verifiability, not truth. This is the only way the project can work. But note that having footnotes is not a goal in itself:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source…

Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Besides the obvious argument for notability, I was only (secondarily) adding that there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources on the topic that demonstrate notability, most of which happen to be in the French language. WP:ENGLISH is about what we should write in; there's no requirement that sources be in English (or online). (See WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available…" etc.) Anyway, this is my last message here; no point discussing notability further. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean we can't use foreign sources, in fact we must use foreign sources if we are ever to get anywhere near finishing the project. Try using google translate if you can't read a language, it's not really good enough to write articles from, but you can clearly tell that the sources I listed demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 19:00, 14 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harrison (tennis player)

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

nowheres close to being WP notable as a tennis player, the main claim this article makes for his notability - ATP.com has no record of him whatsoever (the ITF circuit site [35] does record that he played in a handful of ITF satellite tournament matches (half qualifying, half main draw) during the 1990s, with him losing each time); he is certainly non-notable as a coach too (despite there not being at present specific WP notability criteria for sports coaching) Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 15 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Lok-wang

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

I can't find any coverage. There is an article on zh.wikipedia for 吴诺弘, but it's also unsourced. News search is not turning up anything under any of the permutations of his name, at least not that I could find. Most of the roles seem small. Gigs (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Our articles on the shows he has "starred" in don't confirm him as a star, and my searches have failed to turn up any significant discussion of this actor. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 15 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic (XML)

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

This article is a rambling list of things which only have a tenuous connection to XML. The closest connection is to Topic Maps, so maybe a redirect is in order instead of outright deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate list of non-related things that happen to use the word "topic". No relevant sources cited. JIP | Talk 07:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. This isn't a coherent or notable list, it's just a text search for "topic". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 8 December 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. Can be restored if anyone wants to work on it, but as a poor BLP, it goes for now. Courcelles 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Aurora

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

Unsourced and distinctly promotional WP:BLP but may be salvageable. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete May be salvageable, but as it is now it should be deleted. If articler is wikified and sources get added I may change my opinion. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it seems a bit promotional but there are plenty of references, even if they are not in the preferred format, and there are enough achievements to claim notability. The fact that it is not yet a good article is not enough justification for deletion.filceolaire (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 8 December 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) 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Vejmělka

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

does not meet any of the criteria for WP notability as a tennis player: has never played in a grand slam or ATP World Tour main draw match, nor a Davis Cup match; has no Challenger event title wins; was not a top-three ranked junior nor a grand slam junior champion; would appear to meet none of the other remaining criteria either Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. appears to only play in futures matches, see here. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 8 December 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) 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marks (producer)

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

DJ that "produced" a single track on a notable work. Was selected for "Red Bull Music Academy" which is billed as an opportunity for "up and coming" DJs. Not yet notable in his own right. Gigs (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Asa^fi, Kemmuru, Elastinen and Pyhimys are all quite notable Finnish artists. Just if someone bothered to write an article also on them to en-wiki, not just their producer. :P --hydrox (talk) 14:28, 14 December 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. Courcelles 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Kay Davis

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

Not notable JDDJS (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The high point of this actress's career has been her performance in a supporting role in an Off-Broadway musical, albeit a long-running one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By support, do you mean keep or delete? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think the article asserts enough notability here; I'm no expert in this field, but it seems that she's notable enough for an article. The only reason I PRODded it was because it was an unsourced BLP, and had no sources; now that it has sources, I see a decent claim to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUS and WP:ENT. I really don't think she's notable, at least at this point in her career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, for sure; I'd tend towards leaving it be, but I don't have a strong feeling either way. It might be the sort of thing someone could userfy, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 29 November 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) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 8 December 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) 01:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melodramus

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

Appears to fail notability (WP:BAND). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:51, 24 November 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) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wellll.... they're signed with a [major?] label, and they've got a song on the soundtrack of a [major?] film, so.... I think that's notability? DS (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the soundtrack (Speed Racer) doesn't actually relate to the film from this article. The film soundtrack appears to be here (Speed Racer (soundtrack)) as sourced from this article. The record label(s) I'm not so sure of. Trying to find specific details for them is difficult, what I can find suggests they specialise in video game soundtrack releases, that kind of thing, with a little indie label(s) on the side. I'm not certain that anyone signed to any of those labels is notable (but I'm completely open to persuasion by someone who knows this area better than I do). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 8 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Young

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

Retired minor league baseball player who never reached the major leagues (or above the high-A minor league level, for that matter). Nothing too notable about his minor league career, ergo he is not worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was a first overall Rule 5 pick, which might imply something about him was notable. I need to google search before I vote. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very hesitant to vote delete on the #1 overall Rule 5 draft pick. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 06:03, 28 November 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) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any sources that indicate real notability or potential for development considering his career is over. Weak delete --Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 8 December 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. Courcelles 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Birje

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

only sources are IMDB. No mention of awards, etc. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 November 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) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RS having been added to the article of this prolific actor. I also note that more[36][37] are available for improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcantara (material)

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

An unsourced article (the sole "reference" says nothing to support anything in the article) which contains a number of statements said by the rights owners to violate trademark, trade secrets etc. Originally created by the WP:SPA Comunicazionealcantara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps a lesson for them in unintended consequences, but not one we should use against them out of malice. Yes, the material exists and is in widespread use (my first Volvo V70 had Leather-Alcantara trim).

The entire content of the article needs to be sourced as a matter of urgency, or the article deleted as unsourceable. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is how it works now - call an AFD if you want a notable article fixed, and delete it if nobody shows up :-). Snowy keep, but merge Alcantara and Ultrasuede, and probably put them both into the parent article microfiber. This would also quench discussions on differences between Ultrasuede and Alcantara. Talk:Alcantara_(material) is the place to discuss it (or better go bold and do it). This might help. Gosh, you can search Google books, and you had a car lined up with it - I've never even heard the name before :-). Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the D as in "discussion". The article is said by the rights owners to be substantially inaccurate, the sources we cite are not sufficient to remedy that, therefore it needs better sources orremoving as unfixably inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 01:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what if the rights owners are verifiably wrong? Do we change the article then to something inaccurate? Not saying they necessarily are in this case, but if reliable sources X, Y and Z say A, but the manufacturer says "no, it's B, change it", what do we do? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...... certainly no more self serving or a trademark violation then this.......... Special k. Though the article does appear to need some work it does provide general information regarding the product that appears to have numerous uses and has been around for several decades. Additional information like that provided here [38] might be added. About that trade secrets issue ..... no more information has been given then could not be garnered from a hazardous materials data sheet nor have details been given to reproduce the manufacturing process. --StormHarbinger 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep - distinctly notable and widely-used material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 8 December 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 HBO. Courcelles 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Signature Asia

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

Very Promotional Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge with HBO Signature. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 8 December 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 16 December 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. Courcelles 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Balone

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

I'm not sure if this particular subject meets the notability guidelines for WP:BIO. (Former prisoner turned motivational speaker.) He is apparently quite well known in Buffalo, but his notability is geographically limited from what I can see. He was mentioned in the NY Daily News as having been paroled under Gov. Spitzer, but it's just a mention.[39] On the other hand, he was on the 700 Club.[40] I'm neutral on the issue, but I feel like it needs clarification. ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He also has an article devoted to him in the Christian Science Monitor. I think, based on a strict read of the basic WP:BIO criteria, he passes muster...but it's a close thing, and the geographic limitation is an interesting point to raise. Regardless, I think barely passing the basic BIO criteria is grounds for a keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this is very much on the line as far as WP:BIO and was wondering. Could a motivational speaker be considered under WP:CREATIVE? I would think so and would lend more to a keep argument. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

François Jacques Boeri

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

Has been tagged for 2 years. A search through Google reveals no more info then is already listed. Obviously is a valid subject with paintings for sale, but no info for WP:BIO Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also am having trouble finding valid sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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, Courcelles 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transformers (toy line). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Cybertron

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

Another Transformers toyline with no independent information to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transformers (toy line), minus the toy list. Worth at least a mention. JIP | Talk 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers (toy line) for the sake of producing a consensus. Agree with the nominator's rationale that there is sound reason to delete this as lacking independent sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 10 December 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. Courcelles 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavytread

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

A minor Transformers character with no independent information to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, next to none actual information. The toy hasn't even been released yet. JIP | Talk 07:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Fantasy

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

While I've found half a dozen mentions about it on sites like "wired.com", I'm not sure this passes WP:WEB, no awards, and coverage appears to be trivial. Worm 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rest assured, this topic is already fully covered on the Final Fantasy Encyclopedia on Wikia. By contrast, WP's coverage of games is weakened to the point of uselessness, leading game experts to not expand WP articles, leading back to deletion in a vicious circle.

For example, there are scores, perhaps hundreds, of articles on Chess openings, and individual articles for each of the five Chess pieces, and even the chessboard itself, but computer game mechanics, which are more complex and thus require more explanation than the moves of individual chess pieces, are not allowed in any computer game article. Chess is elegant in its simplicity, but it is simple. Its articles are therefore limp, repetitious, padded with illustrations and filled with hypothetical observations, while other game articles are bled dry of essential and empirically observable if not documented content.

Similarly Voice acting in Japan is given as much or more credit as/than film actors, yet the WP rules which I tried in vain to fight forbid the listing of voice actors in game articles.
Anarchangel (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks extremely dippy, but there are reviews of this thing at places like kotaku and joystiq, so I think it will scrape by for notability. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk)Ost (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for sourcing - Coverage on Joystiq [41] [42] --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 14 December 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) 19:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Development Finance Agency

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

As far as I know, we don't consider the agencies of US state governments (as opposed to Federal ones) inherently notable, so we have to look for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe that standard has not been met here.

Of 24 footnotes, 11 are from the agency's own site or from other Massachusetts government sources, and thus not independent.
Footnotes 3 and 19 are primary sources and don't contribute to demonstrating notability.
Footnotes 5 and 14 are, respectively, a résumé and a Google Maps link, evidently not reliable sources.
Footnote 23 is raw HTML.
We're thus left with footnotes 4, 6, 9, 11, 18, 20, 22 and 24, which are Boston Globe articles. Of these, 4, 6 and 18 are not really about the agency. 11 is a short report about its merger. What we're really left with is 9, 20, 22 and 24, four articles from 1988-89 about a bureaucratic battle the agency was involved with, an agency called "obscure" and "arcane" by the Globe itself. While an interesting piece of local news, this hardly seems to qualify as encyclopedic, and it's telling that in 20 years, the newspaper that most thoroughly covers the workings of the Massachusetts government has only mentioned MDFA a handful of times. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The agency has about 8,700 stories that mention it in Google News Archives. The predecessor agency, the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency, is also covered by this article; it has about 6,800 stories that mention it in Google News Archives. State government agencies are important; they often affect citizen's lives in more direct and tangible ways than federal agencies. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I clicked those links and received 0 results for both. Could you please identify one or two sources that might indicate independent coverage of this agency? For that—not perceived importance or effect on citizens' lives—is the standard of notability this encyclopedia uses.
  - I've got 'safe search' off in my Google settings. If you have it on (the default), maybe that derailed these links, which have "&safe=off" in the URL. If you do the same searches by hand, you should get the results I do. For some specific news stories, try this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this. They give an idea of what the agency is about and what kind of projects they fund and so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a general comment: I'm not saying state government agencies aren't often notable. Clearly, many of them are. But I'm just not convinced this one is. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability guideline is primarily about the inability of finding any reliable independent sources of information. The proposer has demonstrated that there are actually a number of such independent source articles to be found online; there are doubtless a number of articles, papers, analysis, and reports to be found on paper, and in libraries and archives, not online. As a recently-created item, this wikipedia article merely awaits the attention of additional individuals to follow-up on the initial article editor. Responding to the lack of enthusiasm of the deletion proposer for the actual activity of the agency, a counter view is that in 2009, the agency was responsible for facilitating the borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars, and as an agency aiding hundreds of businesses, non-profit entities, housing projects, and governmental divisions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--involved moving forward projects in the state of over a billion dollars. Such activity, repeated annually, demonstrates that the agency is financially more influential than a large number of the 351 municipalities of the state.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:30, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club transmediale

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

Unsourced promotion for a non-notable event. Damiens.rf 16:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly notable per here, here, and here, among a very large number of others. Article needs a cleanup but there's no case for a delete. Please remember before nominating articles for deletion you're obliged to perform your own good faith searches to verify their notability. (WP:BEFORE) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCat Bible Translation Project

AfDs for this article:

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

The "LOLCat Bible Translation Project" is amazingly unsupported. No sources seem to be evident, beyond links which, chiefly, do not work. This should be deleted as per the Wikipedia:Notability criterion. I'm aware that another nomination of this page for deletion exists, but the crap has gotten even worse, since then. Hard to imagine, but true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Felonius (talk • contribs)

Keep- Even counting the one source that isn't working, there's still two workable reliable sources in the article discussing the subject, plus this editorial from the Chicago Tribune. More than enough to allow a stub-type article. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stubs are specifically disallowed by wiki policy. --Malleus Felonius (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By which policy? - filelake shoe 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, until an explanation for the above and about why the web sources "don't work" is provided which is actually consistent with WP policy. The subject has multiple independant sources, therefore it is notable. - filelake shoe 03:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing the wikipedia:tutorial, wikipedia policy is to build up stubs- and I see few sources which would allow this to be any more than a stub, and a short one at that- but stubs are not relevant to wikipedia.The links are rotted. For one thing the chronicle link currently on the page is unaccessbile. If it is to stay, it must be formatted. Other links are duplicates of each other, such as links 1 and 3 on the references list. That makes like 1 reliable source, and might I remind you that that is toppled by Wikipedia:ONEEVENT? Also, you're not allowed to vote twice, no matter who you are, on a proposed deletion.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has legitimate sources, and the editorial linked by Umbralcorax above could be added as a source too. I believe the nominator has misunderstood Wikipedia:Stub, the guideline for stubs; being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. I also don't know what the nominator means by saying that the "chronicle" link is unaccessible; there's no mention of anything called the Chronicle in this article or its cites. Nor are there any inappropriately duplicated links in the references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. Yeah, there's a misunderstanding of stubs there; 2. the Internet Archive is your friend; 3. The person you were cautioning about voting twice, MF, only had voted once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well written and sourced article about a notable project. JIP | Talk 07:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I will show the sources, and why 80% of them are inaccurate. The first so-called source is a blog, here [43]. This is against wikipolicy. The second source is untraceable, see here [44]. Not even the basic hyperlink works. The third so-called source is merely a definition of the LOLcat Bible Translation Project, written by some annonymous contributor. The fifth, well, that is also a blog. The sixth again returns nothing after many archival searches. In other words, only about two sources are reliable for this entry. The article should be merged with history of LOLcats, or something.Also, the fact of whether it is written well or not is not under dispute. Effort=/=Fact.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Malleus's "delete" recommendation as the nominator has already been taken into account and should not be double-counted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "blogs", please see WP:NEWSBLOG: "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant the Los Angeles Times link is inaccessible, not "the Chronicle".--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Er...the LA Times article is accessable right there in the References section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources already present in the article; this project also was the subject of coverage by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National network [45] and Popular Science[46], and discussed at the 2008 ROFLCon conference on internet pop culture at MIT [47]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very few of the cited sources are not some kind of blog. Suggest more than 2 sources that aren't some kind of blog, wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Felonius (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is really the third nomination, and we already have had consensus that this is notable. As the years go on, "moar" and better sources attest to its notability. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm thinking that this AFD should be put through the AFD process once again, for further scrutiny. Thoughts?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by that comment? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he means that this AfD should be speedy closed and another AfD about the article should be opened. I can't understand why. Why not simply comment in this AfD? JIP | Talk 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to assume bad faith, but the only reason I can think of for that would be a dislike of the WP:SNOW, and hoping for a different result... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lolcat. I just cannot see how it is worth an article on its own. Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- 5the link to the Los Angeles Times article is broken.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, (1) it's available on the L.A. Times website here under a different title; (2) it's available at archive.org as currently shown in the footnote; (3) there is no requirement that sources be available on line, so even if it were not currently available on-line that wouldn't affect its sufficiency as a source for the purposes of showing notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it's not broken. Perhaps your computer can't access archive.org? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the archive footnote doesn't work on my most advanced computer browser, with all settings on max. It didn't work two days in a row. If someone could connect this here, with the footnote connected to the archived copy of this, so the footnote actually worked, I'd bee much obliged.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 18:17, 10 December 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. Courcelles 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Ngọc Ánh

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

I can't find any sources covering this guy, and I've looked at reported news by most of the main Vietnamese newspapers. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Vietnam Idol (season 1) - not notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:06, 8 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Avakian

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

Non-notable person. Google hits are mainly copies of this article, just 3 hits on Google Books. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Has been reduced to one line (no edit summary), and there seems to be little point in keeping what's left. Kudpung (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band Fuel (band) (Small the Joy when he was part of it). No independent notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Hoffman

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

Unreferenced for 2+ years, notability not clear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find several lectures, articles et cetera by him but nothing about him. Therefore doesn't pass the general notability guidelines and should be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, h-index is about 7. Abductive (reasoning) 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article [48] covers his work for Apollo in some detail (several paragraphs, unfortunately behind a paywall, but I can provide a copy for anybody who wants it - or anybody with University access to Lexis can get it for themselves). Similarly, there's non-trivial coverage of his work in the Pegasus News here [49], in the Mars Daily here [50], [51] here, and so on. He appears to be one of the key people NASA uses to make instruments for the study of extraterrestrial atmospheres. Ray^Talk 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not analyze the topic of John H. Hoffman, they talk about projects he's involved with. Misunderstandings of the way sources are associated with academics is why WP:PROF was created. Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this discussion goes against my position, I request that the closing admin userfy the article in my userspace. I'll be happy to see what I can do to produce a sourced stub when I have more time over the upcoming holidays. Ray^Talk 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ray, sources establishing notability do seem to exist, though some may be harder to obtain.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of this NASA engineer. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 9 December 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) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hauwa Hoomkwap

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced ~~BLP~~ for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. Seeing the comment below, not sure what to do now. Endofskull (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. And before you all shout SOFIXIT, that's what I'm doing. When you get round to adding some reliable sources that back up the information, I'll change my mind. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stuck per below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I've struck that, might as well let the AfD run though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 8 December 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) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Isler-Leiner

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

Unsourced BLP for 2+ years, notability unclear Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GBooks shows some sources in German, though I do not know what level of coverage they provide. The Books LLC hits are in English, but useless, since that company publishes copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of her photobooks, Spitzen-Platze: Arbeitsplatze von Spitzenkraften (ISBN 3723103804), was published by Stemmle. That's not bad going. -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any even barely worthwhile sources. BTW, i just prodded another article from the same article creator, Joe Brockerhoff, for the same reason.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (1) per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CCC - most high schools have been considered notable, and (2) the sourcing has improved per WP:HEY, proving this high school is in fact notable. Move on folks. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salesian High School (Richmond, California)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Salesian High School (Richmond, California)

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

No reliable sources, references independent of the subject besides trivial coverage where the subject is not the focus THISBITES 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep I agree with the notability essay on high schools that concludes that all high schools are assumed to be notable. That essay's talk page quotes Jimbo Wales as recommending giving slack to articles about high schools. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cullen328, the school is notable in its own right. Just needs a little cleanup. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leaving aside that all verifiable high schools are kept per WP:NHS and WP:OUTCOMES#EDUCATION, this article has plenty of sources in any event. There's no merit to this nomination. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We generally keep all high school articles and have done so for years, its a good bright line rule.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Arxiloxos, and please also see all the guidelines for creating school articles at WP:WPSCHOOLS.--Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cullen, School is notable itself. Well sourced. Cleanup almost finished today. DocOfSoc (talk) 09:22, 8 December 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. Courcelles 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss New Zealand Titleholders 2010

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

Contested PROD. Very limited scope, not really deserving of its own article. Questionable notability. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some useful information. Maybe merge or redirect to New Zealand at Miss World.--Visik (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for an list of current titleholders. A list this narrowly defined will forever be a WP:PERMASTUB. Either delete or merge up to a broader article, like List of New Zealand beauty pageant winners or something similar. SnottyWong ^express 17:36, 22 December 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. Including results from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alikhezrayi, consensus at this AFD is to delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Nouri

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

Fails WP:ENT. I couldn't find any reliable source for this article, even in Persian. Farhikht (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, non notable enough. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* he is a well known actor in Iran. Iranian people know him and movies that he has played in, they have pages in wikipedia. He is from zizigooloo show and by searching his name on google, you can find him on iranact.com and sourehcinema.com/ one page in farsi (zizigooloo): http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AA%D8%A7 second page in farsi (khaneye ma, aks our house): http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87_%D9%85%D8%A7 a lot of young iranians have memories from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhezrayi (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — Alikhezrayi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP: لطفآ صفحه این بازیگر خوبه کشورمون رو نگاه دارید. ایشون مصاحبه زیاد کردن در ایران و همیشه جزو جوانهایی بودن که برای ایران و ایرانی افتخار آفرین بودن. سریاله تهران ۱۱ و جزیره جادو ایشون بسیار جذاب و زیبا بودن. زیزیگولو رو هم که هنوز ما نگاه میکنیم. با امید پیروزی برای شما و دوستانتون. ارادتمند رضا —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.23.15 (talk) 05:29, December 7, 2010 (UTC)— 74.56.23.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: Whatever language that is, I don't understand it. Please provide a rationale in English. JIP | Talk 07:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: with all due respect, but what do you need as a reference? i was in Iran when he won a prize in Isfahan's international film festival (for youth), he won the prize of best actor for his performance in Morabaye shirin (sweet jam), you can go and watch this movie online. He did very good in Khaneye ma (our house) too, he won the best young actor for that role in festival of channel 3 in Iran. You can even watch some parts of Zizigooloo and Khaneye ma on youtube. i give him all my support by writing this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.23.15 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — 74.56.23.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Striking second "keep" from this anon IP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: plz provide reliable sources for your comments and add it to the artice, sources should pass WP:RS, Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* This actor is listed in the international movie data base (IMDB), which is indeed a very reliable source of information. However, the propose of this deletion request is unclear to me. This article does not violate any of the wikipedia publication policies. There has been enough references cited in order to prove the correctness of its content. Whether an actor is "notable enough" as Spada2 remarks, is a purely subjective question and depends on the point of view of the reviewers. I am sure that Spada2 does not recognize most the great french and other international actors as well. Is his personal opinion, which is based on his experiences and knowledge, the standard for articles in an international encyclopedia?? Artists and actors, independent of whether we favorite their works or not, are part of the cultural heritage of the humanity and therefore, in my opinion their "notability" is not a criterion to keep or delete them on wiki. I would also like to remark that notability does not increase the artistic value of a work. User:DrPhosphorus (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)— DrPhosphorus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
While IMDB is usually accurate in its listing of film projects, it is because because they do not share their vetting processes they are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. And simply being listed on IMDB or in any online database, is not usable as an assertion of notability, though such listings could encourage searches for other, better sources. And to be clear, as the lengthy list of projects for this actor is unverifiable it does fail policy for biographies of living persons. In looking, the individual is not found in a g-news search,[52] ~~has one mention in a book,[53]~~ and is for the most part otherwise found in non-RS websites.[54] He obviously exists, yes... but to meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia, the information within the article needs to be citable to reliable sources. If you can offfer news articles of this person and his awards or reviews of his work, even if non-English, it would go far toward showing notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are no book mentions. One is a hyphenated word that is a false positive, and one is from Books LLC, which reprints wikipedia content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Struck that sentence. Not in books. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As i said in the discussion, iranact.com, sourehcinema.com, us.imdb.com, these are reliable sources. His works are still popular in Iran, but i will try to find some more links. I don't know howlong has it been that you live outside of Iran (for people judging this article), but from whoever in Iran you ask, i promise you that they all know Zizigooloo, Khaneye ma, tehran 11, morabaye shirin. I don't know but perhaps you have watched his movies as well. If we want to judge whether he is notable or not, we should look into Iranian cinema sites, if he has profiles there, and his serials (links already posted) have pages here in Wikipedia and he is also on IMDb, howcome he is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhezrayi (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we were to consider iranact.com, sourehcinema.com, and imdb.com to be reliable (a faulty premise in any event), there is not sufficient coverage in these sources to show notability. And apart from these, there appears to be no reliable coverage of this actor. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Come on guys, have you even looked at new links added to the article? These are his profiles on these notable Iranian cinema sites, in one of them, you can even see his pictures with Marzie Boroomand, the famous Iranian director ( maybe you are going to deny the credibility of one the biggest directors in Iran). Seriously are you only here to delete the article? Do you have a personal problem with it? Have you even searched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhezrayi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Alikhezrayi: Many editors DO perform research before commenting. For instance, "IranAct.com" is registered to entities out of New York City,[55] and "SourEhCinema.com" is registered to the Soureh Cinema Organization in Tehran, Iran,[56] a producer and distributor of films,[57] and so are not exactly independent of the subject. I have found no news articles about this actor in ether English[58] or Persian.[59] In a general web search in English, I find only forums, databases, and sales listings.[60] In Persian, I find SourEhCinema and IranAct and then more forums and sales sites. Please... find us a magazine article, or news review, as I am unable to. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a note: Alikhezrayi: Comments are very welcome here, but only one "keep" to a customer. I had to strikethrough this second one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment By the way, the decision was made (by cirt), this article is a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhezrayi (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no... it is not a keep... Cirt courteously "relisted",[61] which could allow you time to provide some news articles about this actor and his awards. If he is as popular in Iran as you say, do your best to find them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Apparently, MichealQSchmidt as well as others who request to provide books or newspaper article as proofs are not really familiar with the book resp. articles archiving and accessibility policies. Especially in countries like Iran, it is a non-trivial job to research on such subjects. If you don't find this actor by basic searchs in google, it could suggest: 1) Most of the iranian newspapers do not provide their archives accessible for google search; 2) Most of the iranian papers on cinema and art in his era of activity never become online or they do not exist anymore based on the iranian censorship; 3) It might also show your dogmatism and incompetency in order to do research. As far as I remember, a wiki member named "farhikht" started this deletion discussion here and claimed that he cannot find "ANY" information on this actor neither in english nor in persian. "Farhikht" made exactly the same comment on any other iranian actor that was listed for deletion. So my general comment is, being iranian or being able to type some words into google search do not make anyone competent enough for all kind of discussion. Thus, I would suggest from now on that the reviewers provide some information on themselves in order to achieve a high-quality discussion based on facts and competency. This means, if a reviewer is not even slightly familiar with the iranian cinema (not cinema in general as michael), so he is by definition incompetent to comment on "this" topic. I am an iranian scientist and researcher living currently in europe and have provided several contributions to the encyclopedia iranica (columbica university). I have seen different movies played by this actor and even some he directed, and I personally read at least one (lack of memory) journal article in "majale Cinema" from 1998 which was as interview with this actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhosphorus (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Bonjour, j’aimerais ajouter une chose ici que je connais cet homme et il mérite d’être ici sur le site de Wikipedia. Il doit être la pour que les gens puissent le connaître mieux. J’ai déjà vu trois de ses films (réalisés par lui) et je dois avouer qu’il a fait beaucoup pour la société iranienne et aussi pour le cinéma iranien. Il va devenir de plus en plus grand et j’espère bien qu’il reste sur Wikipedia. Et c'est justement par des sources sur son Wikipedia que j'ai vu ses films faits en Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.22.232 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — 74.56.22.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- At the risk of looking pedantic, I thought I'd render this in English: "Hello, I'd like to add that I know this person and he deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. It must be there so that people can get to know him better. I've already seen three of his films (made by him) and I have to say that he has done a lot for Iranian society and for Iranian cinema. He is going to get bigger and bigger and I hope that he stays on Wikipedia. And it is precisely because of the references in his Wikipedia [article] that I got to see his Iranian movies." Drmies (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Sorry, but people who are discussing this article, are you even Iranian? Do you know how to read Persian? Because if you are, I sincerely can not believe that you do not recognise this artist by looking at references sites that are on his page. Anyhow his videos are on youtube too if you would like to give them a look. And I have to say that I truly believe that something is wrong here, yesterday the AFD was gone and closed and today we can see that it is back (user Schmidt says). I hope that people here would be fair to this person and this article with a just opinion. And this article has nothing against Wikipedia policy and his references are here to prove its notability. I respect those who have other opinions, but I believe that comparing to lots of articles about artists, this article does not lack any notability or credibility. (sources added)--EshghamVatanam (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC) struck Confirmed sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alikhezrayi. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference loghatname dehkhoda, the most precious iranian encyclopedia on Zizigooloo and Mani Noori http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-a80f9b739ee5443d9d553025b1821bf4-fa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhosphorus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very good reference, now this is dehkhoda, no one can deny it.

With respect, I have to say that the official website of the Dehkhoda Dictionary is an interactive site and users can add content to it. See the yellow box on the left corner of the page: "این واژه توسط اعضای سایت به لغت نامه اضافه شده است."which means "This word has been added to the dictionary by the members of the website".Farhikht (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect for you, but users add articles to Wikipedia,users add information to internet site to make them larger, Even if you are going to deny that, you can't deny that two of his series have pages on Wikipedia. Whatever we post here, you say something about its credibility, while almost every article can be discussed this way, because it is by personal opinion i guess. by the way i went to dehkhoda site and i think it is a very good reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amahnaza (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

دوست عزیز غمگین کردی منو با حرفات، ما میدونیم که این سایت ها همگی درست و کامل کننده هستند. مانی نوری به اندازه کافی ارزشمند برای اینجا . .. هم وطن از تو انتظاره چیزه دیگری بود. رضا --EshghamVatanam (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)struck Confirmed sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alikhezrayi. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I say keep . Because we know amir agha jamali from zizigooloo, because we know pooya from khaneye ma, because we know jalal from morabaye shirin, because we remember our memories through our childhood, now if some people disagree, there is no problem. I respect that. I will add a link here (Marzie Boroomand on Wikipedia: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B6%DB%8C%D9%87_%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF), this is a famous director(no one can deny her) and he has played in a lot in her movies (list available if you know how to read Farsi). His TV shows are still playing in Iran and in Jamejam (for Iranians outside of Iran). Well the pages for zizigooloo and khaneye ma are also added to his article. And for people who are saying iranact.com/sourehcinema is gossip, they are wrong. Gossip sites or gossip pages in Iran, they are not like that, if they are, please show us an example ( i may have to remind you that a gossip site must be a site where they talk about personal lives or they lie). Let's not forget that even a gossip site will only write about someone who is famous enough. And I have a question: how are they gossip sites if they are only showing experiences, photos (on set) and giving profile information about artists? (I mean by looking at them, you can understand that they are not gossip). These sites are cinema sites in Iran. I like to ask people who decide here to get a person who speaks farsi and then judge the article (i think the user Schmidt asked for it from black kite and the answer was positive by saying he is famous). And asking for being in a book, well I have to agree with Drphosphorous and I have to add that we are not talking about kiarostami here (maybe he is mentioned in a book), being mentioned in a book is for masters and if by books, you mean interviews, then i think that you would see them as gossip also. And Schmidt, links have been added to the article and i am sure that your Iranian friend can't deny them, because they are based on official sites and not one single of them is a personal website. Let’s be fair and logical. Thanks. I only made a Wikipedia account to support him. And I will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amahnaza (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC) struck Confirmed sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alikhezrayi. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhikht Dear Farhikht, please answer the questions that I asked on your discussion page, before adding new comments. They are of substantial importance for your credibility. In respect of this discussion, you can start with introducing your research strategies and methods (you claimed, you couldn't find anything even in persian, while you could easily find dehkhoda). It would also be great to know, why in your opinion an actor like Mani Nouri (whose films played for years all over iran) is non-notable but some really unimportant politicans are notable like Bahram Soroush whose activites does not have any impacts and is only known in a very small community of the "20" members of his own party. Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing any political view. Please, do not be stolid. You suggested a deletion and you are confronted with an unexpected resonance. Its time to see the reality. Everyone makes a mistake. DrPhosphorus (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am willing to believe in good faith that this actor is all that the "keeps" say he is, but lack of any coverage or verification of this actor's career in reliable sources even after the "keeps" were encouraged they be presented, lead me to feel a delete is in order. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I recognize the difficult faced with foreign bios, especially from non-English countries, we still need RS sourcing to reflect notability, unfortunately. Even looking at the article's pre-AfD views, there is not much to suggest interest by wikipedia readers in this article--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 11 December 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) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLR105 A1

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

Delete. Non-notable (WP:N) and Airsoft gun variants do not each warrant their own article. The^FSAviator • T 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 8 December 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, Courcelles 00:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this replica gun in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airsoft gun as a reasonable search term. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've bought an airsoft gun before you'll know that there are hundreds if not thousands of variants made by different companies. Redirecting this would be like searching "Mitsubishi Lancer" and being redirected to "Car" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to know what a "Mitsubishi Lancer" was, that would actually be useful yes? I think better than a punt on our part. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the analogy, but no matter. Nobody is going to search "SLR105 A1", not only because it is an incredibly obscure gun, but simply because there are so many airsoft guns out there that there shouldn't be a redirect for a random rifle. We shouldn't make this a redirect because there are no other redirects when searching for other airsoft guns. The topic is really ridiculously obscure, I can't even believe this hasn't been nominated for deletion before.

Delete: non-notable airsoft replica of a real weapon without references. I wouldn't really be inclined to be satisfied with a redirect to airsoft because it's not a likely search term, but redirects are cheap, and one to Classic Army isn't unreasonable. Still, my preference is outright deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:38, 16 December 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. Courcelles 00:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CA M24 SOCOM

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

Delete. No sources, there are hundreds of airsoft guns out there and specific ones should not have their own article. The^FSAviator • T 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: replica weapons, airsoft or not, aren't really notable enough for an article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:25, 9 December 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.