Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 23

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surel

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No press coverage of her music; no indication of chart success. The only Google news hits are two references to domestic abuse complaints against her husband, an NFL player. The talk page claims she charted on Billboard, but Billboard's website doesn't support that. (Don't be fooled by Google books hits for 'Billboard Surel'. These look like OCR errors for Al B. Sure!.) The article does provide one link to a review of one of her albums, but it's not a particularly reliable or notable source. Nominated previously in 2009; that discussion reached no consensus. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria. No references that establish notability, and the Billboard reference does not load for myself or for others, and Google gives no relevant third-party sites. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are issues with the Billboard database that make it unreliable as a negative result. Check the result for Harry Chapin, for example: [1] - Dravecky (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can find no article about her and her music, nor any critical reviews of her albums in reliable sources. The claim for a charting hit is unsupported by sources. Is Urban Ac even a Billboard chart? -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage in reliable sources either, save for a passing mention in the Dallas Morning News. Which is interesting, because there's a longer quote on her web page from the Dallas Morning News (no detailed cite given), that *doesn't* come up, even though the passing mention does. A similar thing happens with the Sister 2 Sister web site quote. Add in the Billboard verification issue, and I'm getting a bit suspicious. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The assertion of charting on Billboard is soemthing from the article's talk page, and is not in the article, and I also did not see such a claim when I visited the artist's web page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Seemed worth taking a look, but it sounds like it's not accurate. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 17:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kantimathi

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

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion as "not notable, as suggested by someone way back in 2007 -- still not notable now in 2011" but not eligible as it had been previously prodded.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are other people also selling clocks for Scrabble play, Sam has no special notability in this regard. There are many other people that have won various minor Scrabble tournaments around the world, Sam has no special notability in this regard either. And trying to combine the two (some minor wins and selling Scrabble clocks) does not make this person notable. HumphreyW (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this page is deleted then the two redirect pages should also be deleted, SamTimer and Pocket SamTimer. HumphreyW (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in any regard. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scrabble#Records. Guiness World Records recognizes him as having played the highest opening score in 1993 which predates the same play noted in the Scrabble article (I'm off to add that info). -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Brand's Crossword Game King's Cup is not a minor tournament, and he won it against strong competition. He was also the pioneer for the clock used in the largest tournaments and world championships. But delete it if you want, I don't care. Sandman30s (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some curious claims here, but nothing that is A) sourced to a reliable third party or B) meets the criteria in the General Notability Guideline which this subject applies. PlusPlusDave (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blooming Prairie High School

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

Very short article about a school. Not notable. The "notable alumni" mentionned in the article doesn't appear to be notable. Maimai009 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that high schools are presumed to be notable. This one has been around for at least 65 years, and went through major expansion in 2008. See "Cool New School", Austin Daily Herald, September 18, 2008. Cullen328 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this particular high school is deleted as non-notable, then where and how should we draw the line? Should we delete every secondary school on the planet from Wikipedia? I didn't think so either.--Hokeman (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is general consensus that all secondary schools are notable. If not, we'd have to scrutinize the literally tens of thousands of such schools using up editor's time that can be better spent improving and creating articles. --Oakshade (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand the article, instead of deleting it. I will try to find reliable third-party references to help improve the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been done for 99.9999% of all high schools AfDs since 2005.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you Cullen328 and SudoGhost for giving your point of vue. Though originally I didn't agree for the article to be kept, I have to admit that your arguments are wise and sensefull, and that the article should be expanded. However, three other users here have invoked the high school rule to justify the keeping of the article. I know this consensus exists and in my opinion it is unacceptable. As you know, this consensus allows any high school to have an article, regardless of its notability, acomplishments or status, only by the fact that it exists. This rule apparently doesn't apply to any organization (hospital, library, company, whatever...), but high schools seem to have a special status. Anyway, arguing against this consensus seems to be like talking to a wall. It's like it is not possible to challenge it just because it has been here for a long time. Maimai009 10:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - actually high schools are not alone. Consensus has many categories of articles that are kept. This is for the pragmatic reason that with sufficient research, reliable sources can be found or because the community regards certain subjects are sufficiently important to merit a page. Other examples, are species of fauna and flora, high court judges, peers of the realm, super-regional malls, named bridges, numbered highways, railway stations, airports, degree-awarding institutions, regional hospitals etc TerriersFan (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TerriersFan here, we have many categories of articles that are generally treated uniformly at AfD. E.g., populated places is one of the biggest ones. AfD is overhead to the project, so it should be streamlined to getting rid of crap and not verifiable non-controversial content like this category. Then we can spend more of our time writing, improving, and sourcing articles. The effort that would be expended parsing thru every high school to apply our very subjective standards of when the notability threshold is crossed for this category would be a net negative.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD is not the venue for contesting established policy, precedent, or practice. For this, Wikipedia has other set procedures. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above. According to my own standards, it also passes. It is an accredited school of lasting duration, and has a significant staff size that indicates it is a large enough high school. There is already at least two reliable sources to verify its existence and prove notability. I think this discussion refreshes the consensus about high schools as virtually per se notable. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information and citations, further cementing in my mind that this school is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - factual article of record on a public high school that educates to grade 12. No good reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, high schools are generally considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most encyclopedias routinely accept that "very short articles" are a perfect companion for longer articles in their encyclopedia. The keep position here is based on the fact that the nominator has not given a reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Not notable. Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are de facto notable per WP:NHS. Nomination has no rationale other than 'not notable'. Nominator's comment to the effect that s/he just doesn't like WP:NHS is not admissible as an AfD argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accord with the commonly accepted sentiment that secondary schools are notable per se. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Pelle

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

Recreated speedy and contested PROD. The subject does not meet WP:ENT in that he has not had significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor is there any significant coverage of the individual himself available. The fact that it was twice created by an account called Prworld345 does not instill any confidence that this anything but an attempt at promoting a new actor. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to not meeting WP:ENT. The character he is supposedly 'most known for' does not appear in the cast list for the movie on the relevant Wikipedia article, and neither does he appear in the primary cast list for imdb's page for the movie. Simply being in movies/television does not make one notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. It's a pretty big stretch for notability when his best known role is a small part in a movie way off the main cast list. And for being best known for that role, I can find no sources to substantiate even that claim. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Pandit

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

This person does not seem to be notable. The only sources provided are the website of the school where he works and a newspaper story that seems more like an ad. Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Where did the picture come from? -OberRanks (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable in any way. He's a nutritional councilor/teacher. That's all the article says about him, the rest is about the school's nutritional program, which is also not notable (I was unable to find any references to the school's nutritional program, even on the school's website.) Also, the first reference reads like an advertisement, and the second reference is a 404. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:AUTH--Sodabottle (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Daniel Summers

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

When I first read this article, it struck me as being very self-promotional. If I had to venture a guess, the main author ("lentollc") is Benjamin Daniel Summers or is someone who is trying to promote him.

This is a pretty long article, however it seems to be filled with a lot of fluff that does not equal notability. Let's start from the top and work our way down...

The article claims he "is the founder of Houston-based private investment company Adagio, LLC" and "The Scholar Athlete Academy by Ben Summers" in the lede, indicating that this is what he is mostly notable for. Being the founder of a semi-well-known investment company and an athletic training company does not make someone notable. Next...

His educational career is not notable and the stuff that fills this section really is just filler. For example "designed to investigate fundamental questions about the shape of the elemental differential energy spectra of cosmic rays from the low energy region around 10^10 eV through the highest practical energies, about 10^14 eV.[2] ... Fourier synthesis to the comprehensive set of just and equal temperament acoustic intervals and triads to uncover unique, objective relationships between consonant harmonies" is completely unnecessary in this article and if I had to guess was added just to give it more length. Next...

"Music compositions (partial list)" ... Non-notable listcruft. Next...

It seems as if the author is attempting to establish notability by this individual's associations rather than his actual accomplishments. For example, "Dicharry’s athletic career began as a quarterback (under offensive coordinator and former professional quarterback Robbie Mahfouz) and right-handed pitcher at Class 5-A Louisiana High School East Ascension..." Furthermore, it details his associations with Gayle Hatch, who at one point worked for Team USA apparently and it also says he pitched under Smoke Laval (another notable-by-association example). And it goes on and on and on with that. Eventually we learn that he played professional baseball...BUT his entire two year, 21-game career took place in the independent leagues, and his performance was not outstanding at that level. Therefore, it was not notable as it doesn't pass WP:BASE/N. Next...

Energy services career...so, he worked for a bunch of oil companies, just as hundreds and thousands of other people have done. Next...

Entrepreneurship...we come full circle to his entrepreneurship, where we learn about the none-too-notable businesses he founded. Next...

Personal...well, next...

Now for the references. The first one seems to be a self-written PR piece, so it is not "Independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. The next one is a link that just details the science project he worked on, the one after that is a link referencing the football player he worked under, the next one is just referencing a coach he trained with, the next one doesn't really link to anything that has much to do with the article, the next one links to Summers' professional baseball career (yay! One that actually reference the subject of the article!) but as I stated his career is hardly notable, the next one falls under WP:ROUTINE, and all the others are either "linkcruft" or WP:ROUTINE.

In short, this article says a lot but a lot of words ≠ notability. This article should be deleted. Alex (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless notability can be established (which seems unlikely). Looking at the creator's contributions, the user appears to be a WP:SPA with no purpose other than promotion. Although I cannot speak for others, I personally see no value in this page staying. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've deleted some of the NN material, to better see if there is anything notable left. Which largely turns on whether The Scholar Athlete Academy by Ben Summers is really notable enough to have a wp article, which it has at the moment. People might want to take a look at that article, with that question in mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That article was also created by Lentollc, and is sourced only to a press release. I tagged it earlier for notability, but I don't think that it meets our inclusion criteria, but I did not spend much time searching for sources on it. In any case, even if the academy is notable (which I doubt), there is still no coverage about Ben Summers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability as a baseball player WP:WPBB/N. Sources about subject's businesses are not independent of subject. I corrected one source which was noted as being published from CNBC when actually it was a company published press release. Claim that the subject changed names fails WP:V. It is possible that these are two different people being pieced together without further sources (Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein ). External link at Fanbase.com is not reliable, as anyone can edit it. Other external links are also not independent—they are his companies site's—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scholar Athlete Academy by Ben Summers which is related to this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet our usual notability thresholds for minor leaguers, and no significant independent coverage of his business activities.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons noted by the nominator. I also have serious BLP concerns. All of the sources relating to the baseball career are about Ben Dicharry. The article asserts, but cites no reliable source for the fact, that Dichary changed his name to Summers. This is a serious issue. Without solid verification of that claim, Wikipedia could be used to facilitate identity theft. Not saying that's the case here, but we need to be extra careful in such situation. This should be deleted rapidly IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou Family Collection

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

Delete as pure (slightly illiterate) promotionalism. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shameless promotionalism masquerading as a bona fide article--Hokeman (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:PROMOTION. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caillou. It's a reasonable search term and is completely unambiguous. Pburka (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vigorously oppose promotional redirect. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't redirect. Wish it could have been speedied. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this genre is too broadly construed to have a meaningful list. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of soft rock musicians

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

I believe that the premise of the list is just too broad of a musical genre to make a viable list of. Some people will just want to list adult contemporary articles and bands here (Anne Murray), some think that folk music (Cat Stevens)) should be here, while others are apparently of the opinion that any artist who has ever released a ballad or a mellow song (The Beatles, Pink Floyd) should be here. I'm not advocating deletion simply because it is an article that will see reverts day in and day out...we deal with that all the time over at grunge music with attempts to add bands. The further down you go into sub-genres of music... List of glam rock artists, List of gangsta rap artists, etc...the easier it is to source and define. Her,e with "soft rock", it is just too vague and too poorly-defined, thus running into original research issues. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: OR, if reliable sources designate someone a "soft rock musician", why isn't that sufficient to include them in this list? The same answer goes for dividing soft rock from adult contemporary (note that soft rock describes the latter as being what the former developed into); if some sources describe someone as soft rock and others describe them as adult contemporary, then they could go in this list and a list of adult contemporary musicians if that existed (genre classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor definitive). If sources describe someone purely as adult contemporary, they would not go in this list. So I'm not yet seeing why any of these problems are so intractable as to merit deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a different between AC and soft rock, just two terms for the same general type of music. The general thrust here is that as you climb up the scale from specific music genres to more general ones, at some point it just becomes too generalized to be of use as a list. Again, one the example above was List of gangsta rap artists. If you go a level up, is there a List of hip hop artists ? There isn't (it is a list of lists), as that would be too all-encompassing to be of any real value to the reader. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What subgenres are included within soft rock? postdlf (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of why sources are problematic on such a broad issue as this, Allmusic, generally considered in this category includes soft rock for Frank Sinatra, among others, that are equally puzzling. It seems the category is so broad it pretty much includes everything. There has been a genuine attempt to supply sourced, but it doesn't seem to be possible because of the nature of the category.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initially did look around at how other lists handled this, i.e. gangsta --> hip hop, seeing if that could be done here, but I don't think there are any real sub-genres. It's just a lump. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Narrow & Split The list is way too broad and the number of artists that qualify for inclusion in this list are likely in the hundreds. According to Soft_rock, every notable rock band since the 1960's that is not considered hard rock would need inclusion in this list. If this list must be kept, I would suggest at least breaking it down by decade to make it more manageable and sensible. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a good illustration of original research and why there's a policy against it. The criteria for inclusion seem to be that a Wikipedia editor would say, "that's a soft rock musician", or that a Wikipedia editor listens to a "soft rock" radio station and has heard a song by this musician on the radio, or, perhaps, this is not a hard rock artist, hence it is soft rock. Billboard magazine does track this type of thing, even using the words "soft rock" in its measure of sales of adult contemporary music. However, this is a fairly useless list, with no information about an artist or group except one of those cute little flags from the Wikipedia book of stickers. What it should have is artists who can be shown to have reached #1 on the Billboard AC chart, along with the song that got them there. Mandsford 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OR ErrORs:

Conflation

Articles requiring editorial oversight are OR - because a rationale for inclusion must be established by editors, as it does on every article on WP, and as written in rules such as RS and V, it is OR to draw the line. Particularly prevalent on List AfDs.

General errors

A mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Camel's nose, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it.

The fundamental error in defining OR is that anything on WP is OR. It's quite simple; it has been rooted out and destroyed since day 1. It does not exist anymore. Stop trying to find it in new and original ways. Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of fancy words, but it doesn't really address the point that "soft rock" is itself a poorly-defined and very nebulous music classification, thus making for a poor list subject. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grats, you are the first person who has ever used what might very loosely be called an Argument from Ignorance in the sense that my arguments were too fancy.

Good definitions are among the things that make experts of a subject scholars. There are plenty out there; just pick the best one. Editing is what editors do. Preferably in mainspace or on the talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract assertions aren't much of a retort against specific complaints. Could you address the actual article? I'd like to see this saved, if it can be, but I'm not seeing anyone defend this as a workable genre classification for this list. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't arguing from ignorance to point out that you didn't actually, y'know, say anything of worth. We have what is IMO a worthless list based on a too-generic genre of music. Address that argument if you're able to. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IMO part; your categorizations of worth are only assertions. The parameters of inclusion that should be placed on the article, I have already addressed. ("Good definitions...etc")

Comment It isn't an issue of editors not being able to comprehend the nature of the list, but rather an inherit problem with the list itself. List of people who have eaten a sandwich would be a factually correct list, and would have entries that might be notable (the Subway guy, for example), but such a use would ultimately be useless due to the overreaching scope of the list's parameters. Not because we assume editors lack the ability to comprehend the list. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you shouldn't even have gone there. You have not considered the ramifications of even your rather Straw man-like argument. The Subway guy should have given it away; the list of people who have eaten a sandwich could only include him, because he is the only noteworthy sandwich eater. So it would be deleted, not due to too many entries, but to too few. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable sandwich eaters: Edward Gibbon, Hillel the Elder, John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, and those are just quickly glancing at the Sandwich article. I'm not sure you understand what Straw man means, because the only thing I commented on was your statement "editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it." which was neither stated nor implied by anyone, making your statement the Straw man argument. Nobody assumes the ignorance of editors. The problem is with the list itself being overly generic and overreaching, not with people's handling of the list. - SudoGhost (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Billy Joel argument This is classic example of Soft/Hard Rock delineation. No one dispute Piano Man (song) is classic soft rock song no one can say the same about We Didn't Start the Fire. So which is he? This is entirely subjective delineation and one not fitting for Wikipedia as only opinions work. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugmark

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

spammy article with history of blatant COI. Very questionable notability WuhWuzDat 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite WuhWuzDat's incorrect assertion that the notability of this certification program is "very questionable", it has been covered by reliable sources worldwide, in depth and in detail, for well over 15 years. I've added five such sources to the article. Paywalls can be frustrating, but thank goodness my regional newspaper of record, the San Francisco Chronicle, still makes lengthy articles available for free. Here's their article on Rugmark: [2]. I don't think that any reasonable editor can read this article, over 20 paragraphs long and entirely about Rugmark, plus the other references I've added, and end up by concluding that this topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination for deletion is seriously misjudged. JMcC (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no doubt this articel has a spotted history; I've cleaned some of it up in the past. However, there is no doubt about notability. Reliable sources exist that cover this topic in detail. Thanks to Cullen328 for taking the time to improve the article with additional citations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in. I work for GoodWeave (formerly RugMark), and we rebranded the label in 2009 and the whole entity in 2010. More info is available on GoodWeave.org ^[1] See also GoodWeave International's page^[2]. Press articles that mention the change include the Huffington Post^[3] and the Guardian ^[4]. We'd love to change the logo on the RugMark page, if it's not deleted, but don't have enough changes on Wikipedia to be verified. Rviser (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Daily Show segments

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

Delete as indiscriminate, trivia, non-notable, unmaintainable, etc. This attempts to be not merely a list of every episode of The Daily Show, but a list of every bit and skit within every episode, which probably number in the thousands over the show's history. As a faux-news show, these segments are obviously topical and transitory, and the segment names are disposable puns. Those that are recurring, i.e., significant in some way, are already covered by List of The Daily Show recurring segments, and List of The Daily Show correspondents also annotates the correspondents by recurring bits they are known for. FYI, I adore the show, but this list is just not right for Wikipedia. And it looks like no one's bothered to update it since 2007. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can't be maintained, nor can it ever be well-sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know of no Wikipedia rule for 'unmaintainable', other than the reverse: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. And yet these arguments are presented ad nauseum. Jon Stewart erred when he used wikt:self-effacement to attempt appeasement in describing the Daily Show as 'fake news'; he should have known that on his side of the aisle, to give an inch is to invite Blitzkrieg. The 'puns' could only become 'disposable' should TDSwJS runs out of the thousands of aphorisms, metaphors, adages, proverbs, epigrams, maxims, idioms and combinations thereof that make up a good chunk of our (admittedly mostly European or American) spoken culture. TDS teaches culture; don't make WP a place that destroys it. Pick your rationales more carefully. Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List with no meaningful criteria. Clearly, not every segment of every episode, because then we'd need to make up a name of all of them and making up names for the handful we randomly select is already keeping us pretty busy. We have to make up the names, of course, because we have no independent reliable sources covering this because it's a topic we created. Unless we're going to start List of outfits worn by guests on the Tonight Show or List of people mentioned by name on the CBS Evening News or, heck, List of segments on the CBS Evening News (fundamentally changing what Wikipedia is in the process), there is no topic here in this uselessly huge, unreferenced orphan. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting idea, massive task, unencyclopedic subject in the final analysis, mess. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is adequately covered in List of The Daily Show recurring segments. I suppose this could become a redirect to that but it seems unnecessary. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Eyeroor

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

No notability --Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would say little, rather than no, notability. The citations check out, but I'm not sure if there's enough to prove notability. There are virtually no good links online. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a notable atheist and skeptic as can be seen from this and this. His web presence is not so good, probably because he writes in Malayalam. Salih (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable work? Can't say web presence is not good beacuse he writes in Malayalam. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakthiyum Kamavum (Spirituality and Sex) is one of his notable works published by Malayalam publishing major D. C. Books; a review can be found here. Salih (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails on every bullet point for notability. The citations listed in the article current to March 12th are from google books and his name isn't even listed it just comes up in the search for approx. two books. Syn 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look carefully, both the books have his name. Click on the link 'more' to see the complete list. Salih (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puzha is D.C. books own site, can't cliam that as a 3rd party References, eventhough what is notability of that book? Best selling or any notable award?--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any awards to the book, but it is a book published about 30 years ago and still in print. Salih (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are his books, you can't use "just" his books to prove his own notability. Its only proof that he either wrote or helped to write a few books. If you can manage to toss in a few page numbers to source the statements in the article, you have a start. To me it just looks like an unreferenced blp that can't be sourced through multiple sources independant of the author. Syn 13:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not trying to establish the notability of the person through his book. I was merely trying to answer Kiran Gopi's question "Any notable work?" Agree that large portion of the article is not sourced, but it is not an unreferenced BLP as you claim. If somebody challenges the unreferenced portion, it can be removed. I will try for getting the relevant page numbers you asked. Salih (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have had to remove several references from the article because they were to "books" that are simply print-on-demand copies of Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I didn’t realize that. Salih (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Virginia Tech Police. I am convinced by the arguments below by B and Mandsford that this is a WP:COATRACK and that WP:BLP1E applies; as chief, he got in the news only incidentally as part of the coverage of his department's response to events. Mergers from the edit history to Virginia Tech massacre can be handled through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Flinchum

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

This article is about the chief of the Virginia Tech Police department. He was in the news during the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre and nobody has cared about him before or since. This is textbook WP:BLP1E. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Half of the article is a lopsided attack piece detailing how the police (not Flinchum personally) followed up on some bad leads in the beginning of the investigation. There is nothing whatsoever here that could not be covered in Virginia Tech Police or Virginia Tech massacre. B (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Virginia Tech massacre, as appropriate. Strikerforce (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1e doesn't apply here and a seperate biography is appropiate because of Flinchum's role in the event you mention because his role is substantial and well-documented not only in the normal new sources we'd think of (newspaper, TV, news magazines, etc) but also in at 4 books on the masacre. BLP1e also doesn't apply here because Flinchum also received signifiant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources where he was the subject of the article (not the event he was involved in) for his involvement with a manhunt for an inmate that escaped near campus where he received a commendation from the Virginia govenor for his leadership during that incident. See the first footnote in the article for details. RadioFan (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that little in the article about either incident is actually about him - it's about the police department as a whole. In the third paragraph (the part that deals with the shootings and comprises half of the article), only two sentences even mention Flinchum. This article is the definition of a coatrack. As for the number of events ... there is nothing whatsoever to say about him for the Morva situation. The only event that anyone cares about him for is the shootings. --B (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first 3 references are directly about Flinchum, the USA Today article covers his involvement in the Morva incident as well as Flinchum's background, The CNN article talks about his involvement in both events and includes comments from a base police chief on Flinchum. The Roanoke Times article is focuses on his history and current educational efforts. The media, these 3 articles in particular, provide coverages of Flinchum's involvement in both incidents so while the masacre certainly did receive the most attention, it's not the only event "anyone cares about". Not seeing how you are finding this article as e definition of a coatrack, can you please ellaborate?--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech police. Although WP:BLP1E is often misunderstood as requiring deletion of famous people known for one event (such as Jack Ruby), what it refers to is the question of mentioning someone within the article about the event rather than giving them their own individual article. This seems analogous to the example given in WP:1E of the difference between Rodney King, and the guy who shot the video of Rodney King being beaten. I agree that it's a coatrack, along the lines of "it's this guy's fault". Mandsford 19:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest, for those looking to merge/redirect/etc, that Virginia Tech Police is the correct target for a redirect - he is the chief of the police. That article should probably be expanded to have something more than a one-liner to say about the shootings. --B (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario video game remakes

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

Per removed prod by User:New Age Retro Hippie: "A general topic that does not exist for any other subject and should not for this. All of these games are mentioned in their main articles, and a category exists for ports already." I instead nominated as AfD due to age of the article and this is essentially a list article. Ost (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (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) 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something general like List of Mario media. While it is really a content fork, as they should be discussed in the original game's article, I don't think the article deserves deletion because of its age and history. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Mario media--Sloane (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mario media. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, hoax created by serial hoaxer —SpacemanSpiff 06:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secunderabad - Rajendra Nagar Bihar Express

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

No such train exists. Checked from the official website. Also, the description given in the title is clearly wrong, as no train connects Secunderabad with Indore. SBC-YPR (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional animal-powered transport

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

This is a virtually infinite list. Crow? Sure, and if we watch enough cartoons, several dozen other species of bird, too. Lots of insects too. Cheetah, lion, giraffe, hamster, etc. Oh, then we have specific fictional animals. None of the horses on Horseland are real, so each of them would need to be listed, along with Trigger, Silver and every other fictional horse ever used. How about the car in the Flintstones? It's certainly fictional and it's animal-powered (Fred's feet power it). The flying bike in E.T. is certainly fictional and it's powered by E.T. and/or the kid. The kid is certainly an animal. Is E.T.? Can't tell... Is Superman an animal? His ability to fly (and walk, run, jump, etc.) are all animal-powered... How about all of those contraptions in various Dr. Suess books? SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be nothing but indiscriminate OR, even if limited to listing article subjects. If there's a valid list in there somewhere, I can't see it. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list serves no purpose and is too broad and generic to be a useful list. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keyword in my view is fictional. Almost any idea or concept dreamed up by someone's imagination could conceivably be made part of this list.--Hokeman (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, such a list would be presumed restricted to examples from notable works of fiction, rather than someone's imagination, but I don't see the value of this. I can't even figure out whether they're referring to fictional species of animals that happen to be helping in transport, or whether the idea is to mention every important work where someone rode a horse. I figured "crow" was added by a vandal having fun, but it's apparently part of the original list. Just as well that there's no explanation. Delete Mandsford 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the proposal currently on the page. I note the WP:IDONTLIKEITs above don't take that possibility into account, which trumps straight deletion per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the information here is already present in the articles about Avatar (2009 film), Dragonriders of Pern and Avatar: the Last Airbender. Mandsford 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merge is to Outline_of_transport#Fictional_and_proposed_future_transport. However as there is nothing sourced in this article, there is nothing to merge. Additionally, the target section (which needs to be renamed to avoid the problem I've stated) seems to be referring to A) proposed future transport (space elevators and such) and B) fictional transport like flying carpets and witches brooms. I don't see crow or Trigger (horse) fitting in there, though both apparently belong in this current article. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen words is something that can be merged without waiting for a decision by an administrator. "Thanator, Banshee and Toruk in Avatar, Dragonriders of Pern, crow, Appa in Avatar: the Last Airbender". That information can be placed elsewhere. Mandsford
Keep A rare treasure indeed, nomination for deletion of a list article with the rationale for that editors will be unable to maintain it, complete with a, let's say, rough-hewn, straw man argument to present imaginary editors' exclusion criteria. Yawn.

Unmaintainability is a mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Boiling frog, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it. This is WP:CREEP of the OR variety; trying to find new and original ways to delete articles that have no WP rules as rationale. You can't think of a rationale yourself? Try N, for what is there now. But that is not how it has to be.

The content as it stands is obviously pathetic, but it is really not that hard to think of good content for it: Horse, Mule, Donkey, Pony, Horse-drawn vehicle, Horse-drawn carriage, Horse-drawn boat, Horse-drawn railway, Horse-drawn tram, Horse-drawn trolley, Horse drawn artillery, Horse drawn cart, Horse-Drawn Streetcars, etc etc etc, are all good starting search terms to start with. Horse and Mule alone lead me to Trojan Horse, Mule (Foundation) (iffy), The Golden Ass, Bottom transformed in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Modesty of (Robert Louis Stevenson's Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes) Rucio ("my rucio" or "the rucio", Sancho Panza's donkey in Don Quixote, Eeyore of A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh books, Pinocchio, turned into a donkey for a time, Platero in Juan Ramon Jimenez's Platero and I, Benjamin, the skeptical donkey from George Orwell's Animal Farm. Puzzle in C. S. Lewis's The Last Battle. See? That's how you make a list, of really notable stuff, no messing around with obscure science fiction, and make something actually interesting and even inspiring to read. Knowledge and work. The deletion arguments so far are like the conspiracy theorists who say that the pyramids could not have been built by architects with straight edges, plumb bobs, compasses and set squares, so it must have been aliens. Where did I find Trojan Horse on the Horse page, you may ask? From what has been deleted, of course. Edit histories have the best material on Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is not fictional animals, but fictional animal-powered transports. Eeyore? Pinocchio? I'm not familiar with them powering a transport (although I am not familiar enough with those topics to say that didn't). The trojan-horse is not fictional. Benjamin from Animal Farm was an animal, not an animal-powered transport. The same can be said of almost everything else you listed. My argument is that the list is too broad and generic to be useful a useful list. Are you saying that obscure things be excluded from the list? If you want to make a good list, narrow the criteria for the list, not exclude things because of user preconceptions about what should belong. As it stands, one of two things will happen to this list: either the list will be over-numerated to the point of uselessness, or people will continuously fight over what does and doesn't belong without any guidelines to back one argument over the other. If the list were to be renamed to something along the lines of List of fictional horse-powered transportion or something along those lines, and then create other relevant lists where needed, that would greatly improve the list and make it more useful to people. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin drew, or transported, a variety of loads for Animal Farm, and it must be assumed, for Mr. Jones before that. The Trojan Horse is indeed fictional, although not exclusively so, as you quite accurately point out that it is considered to be based in historical fact. I agree that narrowing the scope of the article makes it more inclusive in that narrow scope, and is an option. I have a slight preference for a wider scope and more notable elements, but it is no big deal. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and Keep. Lists of notable fictional elements are good, particularly with commentary that goes beyond a simple list (such as List of fictional Presidents of the United States). So the entry on crow should talk about the title character of A Cricket in Times Square flying on it. I'd lean against including horses here, as it's commonplace for horses to be ridden and there is already a List of fictional horses; maybe just in ==See also==. And we'd have to include The White Giraffe and the unicorn in Flight of the Horse. Ma^t_chups 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Points of argument making this topic worthless: A rowboat mentioned in a fictional story is "fictional animal powered transport". Pinocchio certainly transported something or, in the case of Jiminy, someone. Was he, being made of wood, an "animal"? Probably not, but the whale that swallowed him was. Geppetto obviously carried Pinocchio around, making him fit the category. List of fictional horse-powered transportation would include every fictional horse anyone would care to add. Got a fictional war with cavalry? Bingo. A stagecoach in a "Western" movie? Check. About a dozen named horses in Horseland? Oh, yeah. If we re-write the category to include only fictional means of transportation that are powered by horses, we're creating a topic for no discernible reason, kinda like List of purple fruits or List of fictional people with middle names. Yeah, we can create those, by why? No sources, reliable or otherwise, discuss those topics. If you'd like a category for topics similar to those, I won't stop you. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede Pinocchio doesn't belong, even though he was turned into a donkey at one point. Mule (Foundation) and Bottom are also essentially humanoids, and could not be shoehorned in. Eeyore does not belong unless the title was List of fictional draught animals, unless I am forgetting him actually drawing something. The rest are valid, though. Imaginary straw man list names never get boring for me, no matter how often they are presented, so no harm done. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Don't encourage bad category creation. postdlf (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no clear criteria or scope, sort of an indiscriminate list. No sourced or substantial content to merge. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. An original idea for a list that is the invention of an editor and not of reliable sources. Impossible to delineate what belongs inside or outside this list. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my points on the role of editors above. 'Indiscriminate list' is a myth. If a list has notable elements and sufficient content, editors can decide on the limits of its content. It is not helpful, and I would add irresponsible, to simply throw up our hands and declare defeat because that is easy or satisfying. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel - I see you've added "Sun gods; gods of ancient religions were said to draw the sun disc across the sky". First of all, are gods animals? Second, are gods fictional? Jesus transported his cross (and was transported by a donkey) in the Christian NT. Are they fictional animal-powered transport? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel is just demonstrating to us what "indiscriminate" really means. Next up will be a page move to List of fictional, legendary, or mythical animal-powered transport (including people with animal features but who were not animals) and the characters, gods, or people who sometimes used it. ; ) postdlf (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close, Postdlf. However, since humans are animals, his article would be [[List of fictional, legendary, or mythical animal-powered transport (including people with animal features but who were not non-human animals) and the characters, gods, or people who sometimes used it. Further, we'll need to tweak it to include non-animals or creatures who may or may not be animals. Pinocchio was made of wood (until the very end of the story); did he turn into a "real" donkey? Are extraterrestrials "animals"? We'll need to start a considerable effort to determine if numerous legendary animals were real or fictional. I'll leave the debate on various gods for a future project. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that there is a massive cleanup otherwise delete per WP:IINFO. Like most of the "list of fictional X" articles, this article is in appalling shape and it truly doesn't sound encyclopedic. In its current form the list is pure listcruft. The definition of the list must be clarified and its title should also probably be changed. As a list of "transport" I would expect to see vehicles, aircraft, and ships as entries. "Fictional animal-powered transport" evokes something out of Dr. Seuss. The lede speaks of "draft animals" or "mounts" and the entries are often characters. "List of fictional draft animals and mounts" would be much better. A serious discussion needs to take place as to whether the list is to include animals that are capable of acting as mounts and animals that have ever been used as mounts together with those that are primarily or always used as mounts. Give the list a proper definition and lede and then ruthlessly weed out the non-notable entries and those that don't meet the inclusion criteria (are they fictional? are they animals? etc.). Then source the entries that remain and you've got a keeper. -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am wholly unaware of any reliable sources discussing "fictional animal-powered transport". While there are certainly sources discussing something that many of us would agree is a fictional animal-powered transport. Similarly, there do not seem to be reliable sources discussing American actors who don't like broccoli (as opposed to discussing an American actor who doesn't like broccoli), so we do not have List of American actors who don't like broccoli. There are no reliable third-party sources on the topic. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:V#Notability - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, if no RSes exist on the topic then delete it. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an open-ended list of dubious utility. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad)

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

Not clear how this meets notability guidelines. Lacks references to coverage in 3rd party sources. All references provided are to a primary source. I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

Delete - All. Seems like a simple WP:NOTTVGUIDE case. These appear to be sermons broadcast by the Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International which in itself may be notable but I don't see that extending to a listing of every weeks' sermon as it were a tv show's episode list. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Keep all. I disagree with deleting these articles. Similar to any other broadcast on TV, I don't see why weekly sermons would be considered any different. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing no indication that these articles might meet notability guidelines. It's those guidelines that will be used here to determine whether or not the article is deleted not the existence of similar articles (though like postdlf, I'm not finding similar articles, not that it matters for purposes of determining notability).--RadioFan (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the context of the article I think that the articles are notable enough per notability guidelines. Considering each point:
- Significant coverage - sources do address the subject directly in detail and no original sources have been used to extract the content (except title listings, otherwise list of tv episodes articles would be penalised).
- Sources - are secondary and not primary per definition - please check the sources.
- Reliable - Note that Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability per Wiki guidelines.
- Independent of the subject - does exclude works produced by those affiliated with the subject. Considering the context of the article, you wouldn't expect the sermon summaries to be published under non-Ahmadiyya media irrespective of how notable it is. However within the religious body, the summaries have been produced independently. Note that list of tv episodes do not fall under such restrictive categories (in this case a religious organization) other than companies responsible for broadcasting/profiting etc. Similarly material published by Muslim Television Ahmadiyya or by its site mta.tv would not be considered independent. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only source given in the article is to alislam.org, which itself appears to be nothing more than an episode guide. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first article is not very clear in citing sources, but for this List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2010), take for example the sermon of December 31 2010, you have 1 as the summary produced by alislam.org itself (which is independent to its source) and then you have one source by Tahrīk Jadīd Anjuman Ahmadiyya Pakistan 2 (evidently independent to the last) which is actually published on Al Fazl international newspaper (though here on alislam.org). Moreover, you have (though no source provided here) other sources such as 3 and4 providing summaries.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those appear to be simply re-posts of the same material. I think you are misunderstanding just what an reliable source is, and how they establish notability of a subject. All we have here is a directory of sermons, with nothing to indicate just why information about what the topic of each sermon is of an encyclopedia nature. Again, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is completely applicable here. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first two are distinctively different. The 3rd and 4th are similar to the first one, but then again you get that a lot of that with tv episodes. I don't see why a list of programs that are sermons would be a directory and not a list of programs of tv series.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is not really analogous to a tv series. At this point I'm not rally sure what it is, as I've never seen anyone attempt to create a topic list of televised sermons. Honestly it is just bizarre and does not really belong in an encyclopedia. Find an appropriate article and list one of those websites in the "External Links" section. That is about as far as this is going to go. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets get things straight, the reason why these articles should be deleted is simply because these are sermons?...because so far I haven't been able to digest any other valid reason. If you say that these articles are not analogous to tv series, please explain why not?...if you are referring to the directory argument, please explain why a list of sermons is a directory and a list of tv series is not? Moreover, why is it that tv series are encyclopedic and a series of sermons are not? Please note that an encyclopedia is not restricted to entertainment based articles. Suppose for arguments sake if there were no articles for tv series and someone was to create an article for a particular tv series.... would you use the same argument that never seen anyone attempt to create a topic list of televised tv series? The reason why it may seem bizarre to some people is obviously because of the reason its something new, which itself is never a valid argument for deletion.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can explain why a particular religious figure's individual sermons are notable...and show us a source that is something other than a regurgitated synopsis like you already have...then yes, the deletion reason pretty much is "because it is a sermon". This is not analogous to some random sitcom listing of episodes, no matter how much you may want it to be. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I see that you have just come back to what I originally started with stating the four bullet points of why these articles are notable..now you don't expect me to repeat myself, I refer you back to those points I've made. And Please note I am not trying to say that particular religious figure's sermons are notable as if other religious figure's aren't. Of course some articles aren't created because editors haven't shown any interest in them irrespective of how notable they may be.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally unfortunately, you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what those 4 bullet points actually mean, because this subject matter in no way, shape or form, meets them. Non-reliable sources providing not a shred of critical commentary on the subject matter, but rather a simple copypasta, do not meet the project's notability guidelines. Period. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all these articles are not are not designed for critical commentary - second of all all you've stated is that these sources are non-reliable and that I have a critical misunderstanding of the four bullet points leaving me with nothing fruitful to say. Please if you want me to reply you will have to discuss around the four bullet points I discussed.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we should be wary to urge deletion of subjects in non-western cultures when our ability to determine their notability may be the result of systemic bias, I can think of no comparable list for western religious groups or media: we do not maintain any lists for sermons of other religious figures that I can find, nor (in response to the comparison made above) do we maintain episode lists for non-fiction TV series, such as Meet the Press, 20/20, or (more on point) The 700 Club. Certainly a well-sourced article just about the teachings of a notable religious figure is feasible (such as Theology of Pope Benedict XVI), but a summary list of individual, routine sermons such as this is a different thing. None of the individual sermons have been shown to be notable, and so (to use some secular comparisons) we're left with the equivalent of listing every column a weekly columnist writes, listing every press conference a president gives, listing every review a critic writes, etc. Which would be, in effect, an indiscriminate data dump, not a list of notable topics nor a reasonable split-off list of a parent article. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just because there are no sermons given by other religious leaders is a valid point to delete this article as there is always a first to everything. However with respect to Pope's sermons, though I may be wrong, I could not find any sermon summaries which may possibly violate primary source requirement. Considering tv series such as 20/20, suppose if someone was to create a list of summaries, under what basis would you put it under AfD?...non-fiction? because that's the only difference I see between fiction and non-fiction tv series.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Just because other other sermons have not been added by other religious leaders really isn't a basis for deletion. At the same time, the only real difference I can see between a TV eposide and a sermon is that one is fictional while the other is not. However, that doesn't mean non-fictional material is not noteworthy and should be deleted. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2011) should probably be included here, yeah?
Delete Several places this could be merged. Should be in a subheading or something. not notable enough too Pass A Method talk 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear what you are trying to say.Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing this as something that should be merged.--RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mirza Masroor Ahmad gives sermons every Friday" is really about all that needs to be said about it. We could have a Theology of Mirza Masroor Ahmad article if someone could locate independent sources about his teachings, but that's not the kind of thing we can appropriately slap together from these primary source sermons/sermon summaries. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theology of Mirza Masroor Ahmad would be rarely any different to Ahmadiyya theology. This aside, why are these sources primary?Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability, no third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've explained this above under independent of the subject.Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation has bene pretty much rejected all-around. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rejected but no-one has given a valid or fully supportive argument per wiki guidelines.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single source is never enough for notability, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a similar page was created after this discussion began so a new AFD has been created for it, contributors may wish to share their thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2011).--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - it was actually created before.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that many editors are just stating their opinions, for example its not notable or primary source without explaining why this is the case. If we are going to get anywhere please give an argument in support of you opinions.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since there seems to only be primary source coverage. I find the argument that this should be kept because "you wouldn't expect the sermon summaries to be published under non-Ahmadiyya media irrespective of how notable it is" particularly false, considering that non-religious organizations and publications very frequently report on religious issues. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's particularly different. Under which circumstances would a non-religious group begin reporting on a particular religious groups religious summaries. Note that religious issues argument is not valid in this case because it just doesn't fall into the issues criteria..and why are these sources primary?Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most prominent example I can probably think of would probably be the New York Times publishing an article on a Pope's encyclical (or indeed sometimes publishing the encyclical itself). As to why the source is primary, it's because it says it's the official site of the organization that the subject is the head of.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of primary is actually very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved - which evidently not the case. The definition of secondary is second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them which is obviously the case. (see WP:PRIMARY). The point is the source itself is secondary, irrespective of where it comes from. That just brings me to mind... are you trying to say that a source cannot be independent if it comes from inside a religious group (..or people)? ...say a source relating to articles concerning Christianity would have to come from non-Christians?...in my view that would potentially create serious problems. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that at all. But yes, a leader of a movement is not considered to be independent from that movement's official website. We equally wouldn't be allowed to include the theology of a pastor if the only source was the website of his church, but if someone wrote about it in an actual independent publication (regardless of their denomination, usually) we very possibly could. Please read up on what makes a source independent enough to prove notability. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will it be ok if the source wasn't from the official website?Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, depending on what it is (although the other valid arguments for deletion here would still stand). A source that simply copied the same stuff verbatim, for example, would not be acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but what if the sources are published by some other organization but also reproduced on the official website (as is the case here). Secondly I don't see any other valid arguments for deletion here. (mind the over-questioning).Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Diab

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME; there's plenty of newspaper coverage of this guy, but not in a way that demonstrates notability -- he's not a WP:PERP, he's not a notable WP:PROF, etc. At best this is WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still sources that claims notability for this person. I say keep and wait for more consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with 1980 Paris synagogue bombing. The subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and the depth, duration, diversity, and geographic scope of that coverage is more than the "routine news coverage" outlined in WP:NOTNEWS. Given that the subject matter meets WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E is relevant only in determining whether to keep this as a biographical-type article or merge to the event. My preference is to keep it as is because the coverage focuses on the individual and there is coverage linking him to the 1981 Antwerp bombing (e.g. [3], [4], [5]), however, I would be OK with either. Location (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from the bombing allegation, Diab is notable for his extended (and still ongoing) extradition hearings, where Canadian constitutional law is argued. The article should be beefed up with discussion of the constitutional issues raised by his lawyer, of which there is plenty of coverage in the Canadian press. I would do so, but as a past editor I am weary of dealing with the SPAs drawn to this article. As to a merge with 1980 Paris synagogue bombing, that would be incorrect or at least premature, as he hasn't been found guilty of it. Were he eventually extradited to France and found guilty, he would become even more notable as the person who set off the first bomb in the wave of attacks in the 1980s. --CliffC (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is effectively an article about legal proceedings, not a biography, and the title needs to be changed to reflect this reality. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Square Mall

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

un-Notable mall. I don't see the value of keeping it. Phearson (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a regional mall[6], but at first glance it may be a tougher case for individual notability, in which case I would redirect and add a paragraph to Cleveland, Tennessee about the mall.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Keep per work by Dravecky.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regional mall that crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have added several references to the article but a quick swim through Google News finds many more with the mall as the subject, including real estate transactions, retail updates, events at the mall, and such. There are also nice in-depth pieces like "Keely, Harrison (June 6, 2010). "Out of the box at Bradley Square Mall". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved March 14, 2011." to seal the notability deal. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chattanooga Times Free Press piece is just good enough for me. Kansan (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates that the subject is notable enough for inclusion as a New York Times bestseller author. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Fitzpatrick

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

Fails WP:N —Eustress ^talk 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per best-known for having written the New York Times Bestseller . Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- one of the best authors of our time and we should be able to acknowledge that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.207 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The book is being published in 13 countries and 10 languages", says the Washington Post. Notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NY Times bestseller author is confirmed. This article in the Manila Bulletin states that Hush, Hush was on the bestseller list for 45 weeks, and reviews her Crescendo. There's a lot more out there in terms of soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per best-selling author status cited above. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Nardulli

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

Non-notable actor, with highly suspect claims of being a former pro football player. IMDB is only reference, and shows only bit parts. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I appreciate that we have a new contributor, I found no evidence that Nardulli was ever a pro football player; he did star for a Division III college football team (Elmhurst College) and may have played some semi-pro ball in the Chicago area. I agree with Realkyhick that the imdb.com list shows only small TV roles, usually as an unnamed policeman (e.g., Cop #1). I wish the man well and hope that he gets a major role someday, but it hasn't happened yet. Mandsford 13:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of notability either.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest twins

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

This is an entirely non-notable intersection. Clearly not the topic of any serious discussion, but just a novelty list for hobbyists. Fails WP:N, and violates WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Griswaldo (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to see a well-sourced article get the boot, although I tend to agree that it's not significant enough to list every instance where two sisters lived past 100 (the table provides anecdotal evidence that twin brothers, or brother-sister twins, don't seem to have the special Wikipedia gene that pre-determines whether someone will have their name mentioned in an online encyclopedia). The Guinness book used to keep records of things like oldest twins, heaviest twins, tallest twins, etc., although a lot of that was because authors Ross and Norris McWhorter were twins. I'd rather see this redirected to some other twins or centenarians list than to be deleted. Mandsford 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has 35 references. Years ago, the Lists of people-related deletion crowd nominated one of my articles, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, for essentially the same reasons. It was kept and now is the one of the most popular lists on Wikipedia. This article was created in January 2010, and has developed remarkably since then. I vehemently disagree with the premise that the list in not the topic of any serious discussion. Medical science is replete with twin/longevity studies.--Hokeman (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There is enough discussion of the topic in other media that I think this intersection deserves to be retained. For example, the topic has been a Guinness record for many years.—RJH (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion of the "topic" is there in the media? The sources for this entry are almost exclusively very short pieces written about specific sets of twins upon their 100th birthdays. They do not discuss any topic of "oldest twins." Only the very oldest pair have their own entry on Wikipedia. The entry also makes some rather strange claims like, 'The following is a list of the oldest twins ever." Ever? Really? Basically what you have here is a list of living people very nominally notable in local newspapers for being twins and turning 100, all lumped together on a page as if the topic of "oldest twins" were itself notable.Griswaldo (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep The column called "rank" is titled that way for a purpose. The living and deceased cases are cited to one primary source, which maintains the list. This article is both beneficial and intriguing for the curious ones. Every case has been listed and cited in proper format. The article is based upon a worldwide view; no bias is included, whatsoever. I see no reason at ALL even to consider deleting this excellent article. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of OR sourced to a site (twinstuff.com) that obviously is not a reliable source(see also discussion at WP:RSN). Wile it is true that there has been some scientific use of twins in longevity studies, none of those are about specific pairs of twins, nor are they about the oldest twins. Such studies look at intra-twin pair correlations on life span and such and study large groups. The list is also arbitrary, as there are no clear inclusion criteria. When are twins listed? When they get older than 100? 105? 110? 95? 98.3? As Griswaldo says, the sources (apart from the non-reliable twinstuff.com) are all minor local items about a pair of twins turning 100. That's not even significant coverage for that particular pair of twins, let alone for a "list of oldest twins". Ornstein's remark (about one primary source which maintains the list) is as strong a condemnation of an article as I have seen for a long time in any AfD, that's almost the very definition of OR. I realize a lot of people like this kind of lists, but "I like it" is as much of an argument to avoid in an AfD as "I don't like it". --Crusio (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find evidence of notability such as Twins and supertwins. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands and thousands of sources on twins. But looking at the link you gave, I see not a single one that seems to apply to this list. Could you perhaps be more specific? --Crusio (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me, but I'm assuming it's this book - Twins and Supertwins, published in 1967, at a time that none of the twins mentioned on the list were even remotely close to meeting the criteria of inclusion in the list. I don't see what it has to do with longevity in general either. This appears to me to be yet another Colonel Warden throw away keep vote. I really wish he would take the time and explain more clearly why he wants this entry kept instead of just linking us into the fog. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone from ANI actually here to agree with your ad hominems, G? Ask yourself that, if simple politeness or logic won't sway you. Sorry to hear you get lost when there is a link in front of you. Working at Wikipedia, that must suck hard. Anarchangel (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source contains content about the longevity of twins. If you want more sources for the particular twins listed in the current article version then that is easy to find too. For example, see British twins are oldest in world. So we have coverage of the topic both in general and in particular. The assertion of the nomination that this is "entirely non-notable" is clearly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I assume that you can quote from the source about the "longevity of twins" in such a manner that lends notability to the topic? Please do that, it would be very helpful to all of those trying to figure out how to comment here.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The clearest picture of twin longevity is provided by the study of the life histories of about 1400 elderly twins ( all aged sixty or over when the study began ) made by Dr. Kallmann and his associates. Among the conclusions were these...". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That relates to listing twins of 100+ how? Why no twins aged 70+? You are making a case for including information about "elderly twins" somewhere but not a list of twins of the arbitrary age of 100 and beyond. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either: as with all such studies, the researchers are very careful to keep the identities of their subjects confidential. The reference cited is about "twin longevity", clearly not the subject of this list. --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The selection of age 100+ is a matter of editorial convenience, not a fundamental aspect of the topic. The key point is that numerous sources have noticed aged twins in various ways and so the topic is notable. If you don't care for the basis of selection or other aspects of the current treatment then the article is open for editing in the usual way per our editing policy. Deletion is not an appropriate way of making an editorial point because it is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the entry belongs at all. The fact that I don't like the arbitrary nature of the inclusion criteria does not mean I don't also believe that there are other problems. I've mentioned the relevant policies in the nomination. So no, I'm not nominating for deletion just because of that. Please do not insinuate that this nomination is disruptive. If you think it is have the courage to say so directly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, you are a smart person, so you must realize that your previous comment just simply does not answer the preceding questions. Could you please try to be a bit more straightforward? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption is defined as that which "has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article". Deletion would obviously be disruptive because we would lose all this sourced content contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now you've decided that all AfD nominations are disruption? Unbelievable. I'm not going to engage in any further discussion with you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continued on page 94 — Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ changed to neutral, see below- While I would prefer a bit more sourcing on the general concept of "oldest twins" rather than the individual twins who are old, which would help show that this isn't too much of a synthesis, the concept is well sourced enough to show it's notability. That being said, maybe an expansion into an article on Longetivity and twins might be in order? (Only, of course, if there are reliable sources to establish that as an article of its own notability.) Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article about longevity and twins would certainly be possible and interesting. Jerry McClearn at PennState has been doing research in this direction for decades (on the "old-old"). However, this would be completely different from the current list. Colonel Warden has cited some material that is relevant to the topic of "longevity and twins". None of this pertains to individual pairs of twins, which is the subject of the current list. Scientists are interested in "longevity and twins", but they are absolutely not interested in how old a particular pair of twins became. Science is about sizable samples, rarely about individuals. --Crusio (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess that's kinda true; while articles about the oldest people in general have lots of sources, they are usually broader than the ones here which don't seem to extend beyond "so and so (and so) are now the world's oldest twins". I'm gonna change my vote to neutral for now as I look into it more.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have also cited material pertaining to individual twins of this sort, which are notable too. You seem to suppose that we are exclusively a work of science but this is not so. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and it is explicit policy that it is not a scientific journal. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aging is well covered in reliable sources and there are plenty of viable subtopics related to aging (like longevity and twins). But listing twins who have reached an arbitrary age (100) is not part of the serious study of aging. People surely realize that 100 years of age bares on special significance outside the fact that it seems very impressive to us. That record books would pick such an age as meaningful is totally appropriate since they peddle in interesting trivia. But that doesn't make it a meaningful topic for an encyclopedia. Crusio is correct, and I would not have nominated a well sourced entry that discusses the science of aging in relation to twins. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(@ CW) Forgive me, when you were citing Dr. Kallman above, I thought you were arguing from a scientific point of view. And the material you have cited for individual twins is exactly that: about individual twins. I sincerely doubt that this stuff would even be sufficient to establish notability for those individual twins, but in any case, it's not about a "list of oldest twins". It is too bad that you use your intelligence to try to make so many confusing arguments, that even I don't recall myself any more what I was trying to say. For a challenged person like me, could you perhaps very succintcly state again why exactly you think WP:GNG is met here? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio you're confused because its a shell game. You expect the answer under one shell but it appears under the other shell every time without fail. Other than the oldest twins on the list, none of them have their own entries, exactly because they would on their own fail WP:GNG. The notability of the topic covered by the list cannot be garnered from the sum of a bunch of non-notable parts, but that's what's going on here. It should, instead, be notable in its own right. When you ask that question the goal posts move and all of a sudden there are books that show that a different topic is notable altogether ... when you say, yeah but that's a different topic the goal posts move again and all of a sudden we have the sum of non-notable parts. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key point here is that our presentation does not have to be either/or. We might have both the superlative examples and the results of the scientific studies of large cohorts together and the two would complement each other nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like your own original research. If there were reliable sources discussing both that's one thing, but we don't decide here that two separate things "complement each other nicely".Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of appropriate material for articles is a necessary part of editing. WE are expected to do this in a balanced and informative way per WP:UNDUE. If we only present one aspect of a topic then this is neither. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really nothing more than a collection of "it's interesting" trivia. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness only has world records but my Encyclopedia Britannica has traditional encyclopedia entries and lists of longest bridges, and tallest buildings as sidebars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia commonly contain lists of world records and other superlatives and we have plenty such. See List of world's largest cuckoo clocks, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. As per NickOrnstein. 62.235.142.162 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — 62.235.142.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An editor was recently banned from all longevity related entries and I just wonder if there is a connection here.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. 62.235.159.63 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - refs checks out... i say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very encyclopedic. You can use this to find the names of the long lived twins, and track down other information about them. Did they live their lives very similar, eating the same things, etc? Was it genetics that allowed them to live that long, or environment? And its gets coverage from reliable sources, so that counts as notable by Wikipedia standards anyway. Dream Focus 05:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "a novelty list for hobbyists"? Well, that's what an encyclopedia is to some. A list of former U.S. presidents can subjectively be called the same. Article seems pretty well sourced and demonstrate that concept is notable enough that deletion would not improve project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom & Delete votes being OR ErrORs: There is no substantiating evidence or even qualification added to the nom's assertion of WP:OR, but there is in the comments below, and they, and most AFDs that listed OR as a rationale contain these errors:

Conflation

Articles requiring editorial oversight are supposed, by this faulty rationale, to be OR - because a rationale for inclusion must be established by editors, as it does on every article on WP, and as written in rules such as RS and V, it is OR to draw the line. Particularly prevalent on List AfDs.

General errors

A mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Camel's nose, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it.

Fundamental error

It is probably an error to define anything on WP as OR. What!? you say, but it's really quite simple; it has been rooted out and destroyed since day 1. It barely exists anymore. If it were to ever appear at AFD, there would be 10 inclusionists saying, "this actually is an example of OR, I never see that at AFD". If it shows up in an article and there is anyone to see it, it is deleted immediately. Stop trying to define it in new and original ways. Anarchangel (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All sources are reliable. I forgot to mention this additional reasoning in my defending statement above. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed again. 62.235.159.63 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurimas Vertelis

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the A Lyga is not fully-professional, so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and has done nothing to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Murray, later Lady Glamis

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

Contested prod, this is a piece of genealogy cruft about an obscure figure, the claim that she was the king's mistress is unsourced. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear - we have to look into book sources. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also given that some kings slept about quite a bit in their time (e.g. James V of Scotland) it would be stretching it to say everyone they went to bed with is inherently notable. However there is plenty material on James VI and I, it should not be too difficult to find mention if there is serious evidence that she was his mistress. PatGallacher (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:BURDEN about the burden of proof. PatGallacher (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the ancestor of the present Queen, and she was a Countess per [7], [8]. It is not really necessary that someone be a mistress of a King to have a bio article. She appears in a great many books without the association with James, but scholars have discussed her as a subject of a poem by James: [9], [10]. The latter ref, printed 1911, quotes a letter from 1595 which says she was "fayre Mistris Anne Murrey, the Kinges mistris" and the subject of James' poems "My Ladie Glammes," "Dream," and "A complaint of his mistressis absence from court." On page 78-79 it also says the King and Queen went to Stirling for "the great marriage" between "young Lord Glamis and the Kinges mistress." There was also speculation that a different lady might have been "the King's mistress," as if he were limited to one. Another scholarly book from 2003, p129 says that the "complaint " poem refers to"Probably Lady Anne Murray, whose father was the first Earl of Tullibardine; she married Patrick Lyon, Lord Glamis, in 1595". Edison (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is pretty obscure, at the very least ought to be integrated into the article to establish notability. Also, there are lots of countesses and ancestors of the present queen of the UK, some of them fairly obscure, are they all inherently notable? PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mistresses of royalty almost always play a major political role, and are usually notable The count as immediate family just like official spouses. .
Keep A history of Scotland from the Roman occupation, Volume 1; Andrew Lang: "The famous case of Lady Glamis is perhaps even more obscure" How can this case be both famous and obscure, you ask? Read on! Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept needs to be renamed to Anne Lyon, Countess of Kinghorne. The current title does not follow naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game)

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

Not notable. No independent sources cited. Attention on facebook, blogs, etc, but no reliable sources. The article says "It has recently been recognized on Sky news" but gives no citation for that claim, and what does "recognized" mean? Does it mean it has been briefly mentioned in passing? That it has been given substantial coverage? Merely asserting that it has been "recognized" without clarification or verifiable citation tells us nothing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – The article needs to incorporate the following sources: CNN, Fox News, BBC, plus more. Please give the article more than a day, especially since it's the author's first article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD normally runs for a week, which does give more than a day. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a talk page like this is discouraging. There's three separate deletion messages about the same article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – Per Tetron76 (see below). There's already a Lying down game article, and the content of the duplicate isn't worth incorporating into the original article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. While I agree that the article currently looks pretty lame and undersourced, Michaeldsuarez' findings demonstrate the wisdom of WP:BEFORE: simple Google News searches demonstrate coverage in multiple RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the actual article for this activity. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree that those few brief mentions of rather minor events constitute substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would pass notability but seems to be the same as Lying down game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information. Switching my !vote to delete. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as copyvio. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Scorer

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

This page was previously deleted and has simply been recreated with more spam isfutile:P (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as copyright violation, it was an advert too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus, per lack of sources and per copyright issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Lynn

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was: "Unsourced biography, no indication of objectively provable significance". I am neutral in this discussion Jujutacular ^talk 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just tagged the article for copyvio, as the lede[11] is a near word-for-word copy of the IMDB mini-bio Perhaps addressable, but tagged nonetheless. That said, the filmmaker has directed three non-notable sort films. Fails WP:CREATIVE and minimal coverage[12][13][14] fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am willing to userfy, however. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Good

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

No apparent signs of notability. Good is apparently the subject of a biography (Ginny Good: A Mostly True Story) by a little-known writer based on his own personal relationship with her. The book appears to be less a biography of a notable person than a personal memoir of the writer's own youth. (You can read the book for yourself here). (Note that the Gerard Jones who authored Ginny Good... is not the same Gerard Jones who has a Wikipedia article, as clearly indicated on the notable Jones' website). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added disclaimer, however the biography Ginny Good is not what is being covered here, rather a few brief facts about the person. It should therefore not be considered for deletion on this ground. Moreover, there was no claim that Gerard Jones (author of Ginny Good) was the same author as Gerard Jones. This was made clear by the disclaimer. This point should by no means have any bearing on the deletion or inclusion of this article into Wikipedia. If there is anything further that needs to be clarified before this AfD is removed, then please tell me. Gaggleoffools (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point in making the notes about the authorship of the book Ginny Good... were to establish that neither Good herself nor the author of her "biography" are notable. A person's notability might well be established by the creation of a significant biography of that person by a significant author; that is not the case here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant secondary sources and does not meet notability guidelines. Warfieldian (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan your comments are wrong on both points. She was notable just as the author of the book was notable. Here's a review that calls it an important book, just as Ginny was an important person.

[15]-http://www.januarymagazine.com/biography/ginnygood.html

Here's what Hank Harrison, manager of the Grateful Dead when they were called "The Warlocks" had to say about her at Amazon:

"Giny Good is a great name for the book because this woman was, although petite in apearence, bigger than life. Anyone who knew her knew she was a big deal on a small planet...she was, without doubt, the quintessential bohemian princess.Get the book and capture the feeling of how things realy were in the Summer of Love. HH"

This makes more than one quantifiable source that she was indeed notable. I am working now to include some other sources -- Stand by. Gaggleoffools (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC) BTW, Amazon lists this book and I forgot to include the link where you can find that along with the quotes from people like Hank Harrison said *[16]http://www.amazon.com/Ginny-Good-Gerard-Jones/dp/0972635750 Gaggleoffools (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this entry should be deleted, not because Ginny Good isn't a worthy entry but because Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is silly and biased. Being the subject and sole title of a prize-winning and acclaimed narrative nonfiction account of San Francisco in the sixties...and a whole lot more...is by no means sufficient for inclusion in such a scholarly undertaking as Wikipedia. Here's a sample of the prizes and acclaim:

Oh, here's a random sampling of more reviews, too:

"Comparisons with Salinger and Twain are not overstated..."
"...of all the books I've read, Ginny Good is the only book that had me simultaneously crying my eyeballs out and laughing my head off. Several times throughout, in fact. In a word: WOW."
"...turned my soul inside out. Ginny was one of the most lambent pieces of writing I've ever read. It ripped me apart on the inside so much that I couldn't function for days...the best of tragedies, top notch Greek quality..."
"I was not reminded of any other book when I put this book down, and so I can only come to one conclusion: this is a great and new kind of literature!"
"Though not a short book, it can be read in one gulp-it's so seamless and effortless and is obviously the work of a tremendous craftsman."
"...it's great to read a book that actually means something. To the author, and to me. It's heartfelt, real, and incredibly funny."
"I've got three kids, and it's been a long time since I had the time, energy, or room within me to let a book suck me in the way this one did. When I got my copy of Lolita, years ago, the cover quote was, 'The only convincing love story of our century.' That was the 20th century, however, and as far as that quote goes, the torch ought to be passed to Ginny Good."
"...makes Angela's Ashes look like a Harlequin romance."
"I've chosen to take the dark sadness that I found in some parts of Ginny Good and attribute them to the author's skill rather than things he had to endure..."
"....Jones cares deeply about everything that befalls him and Ginny and the others we meet in Ginny Good. And he wants us to know he cares, but he wants us to find our own way to that conclusion. It's this intelligent respect for the intelligence of his reader that makes Ginny Good sing."
"You are, well, you are the real thing. Your book is the real thing. Absolutely beautiful writing. Damned near perfect. Maybe even flawless. Yow. Thank you."
"...for a while I thought the fire of literary creation had gone all the way out. In this book I think I see a coal still glowing in there somewhere."

Nobody ever heard of her 'cause she was a schizophrenic drunk but she had a pretty big influence on what went on in Haight-Ashbury in the sixties and what went on in Haight-Ashbury had a pretty big influence on international culture for the past fifty years. Here's another quote from Chapter Fourteen. You can read and/or listen to it anywhere, any time, on any device for free:

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggcha.html

"It breaks my heart sometimes still after all these years to know what Ginny would have been if she hadn't been such a schizophrenic drunk. She would have been a god damn icon. She would have had followers, worshipers, acolytes, an entourage. She would have given Zelda Fitzgerald and Anais Nin and Isadora Duncan and Josephine Baker a run for their money in the memorable chick department." --Gerard Jones, http;//everyonewhosanyone.com

-- 97.94.225.44 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on comments at User talk:97.94.225.44, I'm working on the assumption that this IP user is (or claims to be) Gerard Jones, the author of Ginny Good. The obvious conflict of interest must be noted. That being said...

Those are all excellent reviews, and might argue for the notability of Gerard Jones, the author of this book, and possibly even for the notability of the book itself. But they still do not argue for the notability of the subject of the book, Ms Good herself. Claims that Ms Good is notable as "the first hippie" are untenable because there is no verification (other that Mr Jones' saying it in his memoir) that she is the first hippie. Such a claim would be impossible to verify, and can only be taken as hyperbole. Therefore, Ms Good is only "notable" as the subject of this single memoir, which is to say, not really at all.

As for the notability of the book or its author: the book received only a handful of reviews at the time of its publication (good reviews, to be sure, but scant few) and has since fallen into relative obscurity, I think it would be a hard argument to call this book notable. (Not all good books are notable, and not all notable books are good. This is unfair, but it is true nonetheless.) And since the author is known only for publishing this single, relatively obscure book, I think an argument for his notability would be difficult to make also. (Again, not all gifted authors are notable, sadly.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not logged in and yes I wrote the book called Ginny Good and no it's not a conflict of interest...the book is out-of-print, I don't "profit" from it, in fact I give it away. Here's a quote from the book vis-a-vis the origins of the notion that Virginia Good was "the first hippie."

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggsyn14.html

"...She was the first hippie, for one thing. I've mentioned that. Yeah, well, she was. I have proof. Documentary evidence. You could look it up.

There's a picture of her in the school paper at San Francisco State: The Gater. The picture was taken in the spring of 1963. Ginny's dancing on the lawn across from the library; her hair's kind of in her face, but you can still tell it's her. Jim Moss is in the background, egging her on. And the first time the word "hippie" was used to describe the sort of person who we all know now as a "hippie" was in the caption to that picture. She may even have had some flowers in her hair—which, in my book, makes her the first hippie. Merriam Webster may wish to quibble, but hey, she's got her own damn book. In my book, Ginny Good is the first hippie. Ha!

It wasn't just the picture, either. She was an icon in all kinds of other ways, too. She ironed her hair and put cucumber slices on her eyelids at night. She ate alfalfa sprouts and Northridge Farms Honey Wheatberry Bread and tofu and great vats of zucchini, parsley and green beans, all on the personal recommendation of Dr. Henry Beiler himself. He hung out with Ginny's aunt and the Vedanta Swamis in Laguna Beach and literally wrote the book on hippie food. Check it out. Food is Your Best Medicine, the book was called. While everyone else was still drinking Nehi Grape, Ginny Good was guzzling frothy concoctions of Tiger's Milk, Brewer's Yeast and Blackstrap Molasses. While everyone else was just beginning to catch on to the idea of eating Big Macs and Round Table Pizza, Ginny Good was the first one on her block to cook brown rice to perfection.

Nor did it end there. She was the hippiest little hippie chick who ever lived. She defined the whole idea in about a billion ways. Later on, she carted boxes of her old clothes down to the Digger's store so other chicks could become hippie chicks too, then so did they and so on and so on. It wasn't just a matter of appearances, either. Ginny was all up into astrology, astral projection, past lives, psychic this and New Age that, the I-Ching, Eastern Philosophy, Paul Reps, Alan Watts, Fritz Perls, R. D. Laing, Arthur Koestler, Wilhelm Reich and Sam Lewis—Sufi Sam."

Your definition of "notability" is that some bunch of publicists were paid lots of money to make someone or something "famous" so it would make money for whoever paid them to publacize it. Poor dead Ginny was easily as influential a force in the creation of the culture of the sixties as 99.3 percent of the people with articles about them on Wikipedia. Ask someone who was there. Don't believe everything some bunch of well-paid publicists con you into believing. Notability can be bought. Authenticity can't. The kid who stuck the article up in the first place is over in Japan and probably has other things on his mind at the moment. G.

Gerard Jones

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggcha.html

97.94.225.44 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a great shame if this story ended here. Nasnema Chat 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nasnema What Wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of articles because it would be a great shame if a story ended? Please keep AFD discussions focused on the relevant policies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cursory sampling of other "notable" people or groups with whom Ginny Good interacted and/or influenced in one way or another:

Sandy Good, Charlie Manson, Squeaky Fromme, Donna McKechnie, Michael Bennett, Jill Clayburgh, Gordon Lish, Ken Kesey, The Charlatans, Jefferson Airplane, Sopwith Camel, Sons of Champlin, Moby Grape, Grateful Dead, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Emmett Grogan, Steve Gaskin, Hank Harrison, Courtney Love, Pigpen, Jerry Garcia, Janis Joplin, Neal Cassidy, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Gia-fu Feng, Sufi Sam, Phil Schultz, etc. Look 'em up. Man, could I ever not care less whether you stick her in your little dictionary or not. G.

Gerard Jones

http://everyonewhosanyone.com

97.94.225.44 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to IP: If you have "documentary evidence" that Ginny Good is the first ever hippie, please provide a citation to that fact in the article. If that fact can be proven, then Good may be notable as claimed. Otherwise not. Any associations that Good may have had with other famous and/or notable people is irrelevant; a person is notable on their own, not because of whom they know. And whether or not you stand to make a profit from your book, your conflict of interest stems from the fact that you believe Good to be notable because you wrote a book about her. The question isn't whether you think she is notable, but whether she meets the criteria for inclusion that have been set down by Wikipedia. If you don't like those criteria, then by all means take up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to change the criteria. But the criteria as they stand now preclude an article on Ms Good. As you and I have both made our thoughts on this topic quite clear, why don't we both take a rest from this discussion and let other voices be heard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the citation: "There's a picture of her in the school paper at San Francisco State: The Gater. The picture was taken in the spring of 1963. Ginny's dancing on the lawn across from the library; her hair's kind of in her face, but you can still tell it's her. Jim Moss is in the background, egging her on. And the first time the word "hippie" was used to describe the sort of person who we all know now as a "hippie" was in the caption to that picture." Look it up.

Your flawed thoughts are clear to me but mine are obviously not clear to you. Your criteria are biased. If Tom Brokaw tells you the emperor is wearing a fine suit of new clothes you say, oh, yes, and ignore the kid tugging at your sleeve, trying to tell you that Tom Brokaw doesn't know his ass from his elbow. The book called "Ginny Good" is a primary source. It was edited by David Stanford, Kesey's editor for awhile and now part of the Dunesbury staff, and vetted by the law firm that handles Allen Ginsberg's estate. That it didn't get a lot of hype is testimony to it's authenticity. The gatekeepers of Wikipedia want second-hand "facts," not first-hand knowledge. If you read the book, as the guy over in Japan who put the original article up DID, you would instantly apprehend Ginny's "notability," but you're not gonna read the book, you're gonna believe what Tom Brokaw tells you to believe and you're gonna be misled and misinformed and your thoughts are gonna continue to be flawed. Ginny's been dead for thirty years; neither she nor I have any stake whatsoever in seeing an article about her in Wikipedia. Exclude her. Fine. Knock yourselves out. Keep sticking in recycled Tom Brokaw opinions about the elegance of the emperor's new clothes. But the kid over in Japan who thought she should be included had good reason to want her included or he wouldn't have tried to include her. Oh, oh, I found a picture of her:

http://www.classherder.com/memoriamdetail?id=10900&cls=pointloma59

Pretty cute, huh? Ah, but would Tom Brokaw think so? G.

Gerard Jones

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/audio/GGch07m.mp3

97.94.224.14 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've got my hands full with all kinds of disaster over here in Tokyo. I feel that some inclusion as to first hand accounts of a persons notability should be appended into the Wikipedia system. So many famous people know her and can account to her notability. I wish some of them could find this article and append to these notes. As soon as I can I will be posting more to this. Thanks for your understanding while I'm in this crisis. Gaggleoffools (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable, though the author of the book itself might be able to make a case. The website referenced by the ip is entirely unreliable however - full of conspiracy rants and anti-semitic comments. Also brought up an anti-virus warning to let other editors know. Skinny87 (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That she is important to people who knew her personally does not confer wider notability. —Lowellian (reply) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I just wrote all kinds of gorgeous stuff but when I was trying to stick in your little tildas the whole thing exploded...rats. I'm not gonna try to recreate it. It was good, though. I'll talk instead about the website you call "entirely unreliable." That's a crock. The site has been online and hosted by a reputable hosting company for ten years and, to my knowledge, does NOT elicit an "anti-virus warning." Why someone would say that, I do not know. Some kind of smear campaign? Probably. Here's a quote about one small part of the site from the NY Times:

"Everyone Who's Anyone in Adult Trade Publishing (www.everyonewhosanyone.com): One of the great treasures of the Web, this site is a listing of every agent and publisher the writer Gerard Jones contacted in his quest to get his various manuscripts published -- in other words, everyone who's anyone. Jones has reproduced many of his e-mail exchanges with his targets verbatim, which in some cases makes the publishing community look like decent, sensitive people doing the best work they can in a difficult field (here's to you, Daniel Menaker!). Other times, not so much. Either way, the site will tell you more about the book world than any five How-to-Publish treatises combined."

"Ginny Good" is one of the books on the site. It's a good book...read some of the reviews. Not many people read it. Not many people read "The Great Gatsby" until twenty years after it was published. Same with "Sister Carrie." Kafka died before any of his books were published. Fortune in men's eyes ain't all its cracked up to be. You guys have Ginny's sister Sandy in your little encyclopedia 'cause she hung out with Charlie Manson. Whoopdeedoo. Here's a comparison of Ginny and Sandy:

"All I personally remember about Sandy is that she used to work as a sales clerk at the Emporium on Market Street. She sold scarves and plastic headbands and was a lot less charismatic than Ginny—less compelling, more drab. That was before she shaved herself bald, carved a swastika into her forehead and hung out with the rest of the Manson chicks chanting spooky stuff outside the Hall of Justice in L.A., and way before she and Squeaky set up their own website."

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggsyn02.html

Ginny was a subtle and ubiquitous influence on the phenomenon of San Francisco in the sixties. She was there when Kesey told Lish about selling the rights to Cuckoo's Nest to Kirk Douglas for ten grand. Sam Lewis, "Sufi Sam," gave her the name "Mumtaz" 'cause he thought she was a notable person. Remind me to tell you what she did with Cassidy sometime, or better still just read and/or listen to the book anywhere, any time on any device and see for yourself. It's free. Like me. G.

Gerard Jones

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/audio/GGch103clip.mp3

96.39.161.35 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to rule out the possibility that Good may have been notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, but this article needs significant cleanup. If her claim to notability is as the first known hippie, that needs to be mentioned a lot earlier in the article, like the first paragraph or maybe even the first sentence. Right now, if one starts reading the article from the top, it looks like Good's claim to notability is as the daughter of a stamp collector or something like that. Furthermore, the article claims that Good died at a young age, but gives no indication of what year or even decade she died in. Basically, this article needs to look a lot more like a traditional Wikipedia biography, with inline references and such, as well as being better organized to indicate the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about cleaning up the article...its substance was taken from a biography subtitled "A mostly true story." A few names of non-public people were changed--there was no "Roger Singmaster," for example...well, there was but his name wasn't Singmaster. Jim Moss was a fake name, too, as was Pigpen's girlfriend, Mary whatever I called her.

According to Wikipedia's article on hippies, the earliest known use of the word "hippie" was in November of 1964. I saw an article in the SF State Newspaper called "The Gater" which used the word "hippie" in the caption of a picture of Ginny Good dancing on the lawn in front of the library in the Spring of 1963. I don't have the paper, nor do I know whether it still exists, but I know what I saw. That's the thing about a primary source. If someone dug up a first-hand account of the seige of Troy written by one of the Greek soldiers, Wikipedia would dismiss it 'cause it wasn't written by Homer.

I didn't write the article, I wrote the book. What Wikipedia does with the article on Ginny is of no consequence to me. I was there. I don't need Homer to tell me what happened. G.

Gerard Jones

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/other.html

96.39.165.78 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Homer. WP:PRIMARY, GJ, like most WP rules, is a matter of expedience that WP has carved into a silent and important-looking stone for us all to genuflect at. The real rationale is that hardly anyone at WP knows you, so it is impractical to take your word for it. I can empathize with both you and WP, truly, I just sometimes wish WP would grow a spine and admit that the rules are there for the convenience of the running of WP, rather than being a mandate handed down by God. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the cynicism of Anarchangel (talk · contribs), the policy stated at WP:PRIMARY serves a very important purpose at Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia here, a compendium of verifiable facts. Primary sources are essentially the writing of a subject about themself, with no editorial fact-checking, and therefore cannot be used to objectively verify the facts in an encyclopedia article. However, that point is irrelevant here. The book Ginny Good is not a primary source, because Ms Good did not write it herself, nor did Mr Jones write the encyclopedia article himself, so there is not a question of relying on primary sources. The only problem with this article is one of notability. As far as I can tell from any argument made here, Ms Good is only "notable" because Mr Jones, an otherwise unknown writer, but a sensational gadfly about the publishing industry, has chosen to call her so based on his personal experience with her, and has written a good, but obscure, book about her. This in no way confers notability upon her. The fact that she moved among a circle of notable friends also does not confer notability, as notability is not inherited. If anyone can make a single argument for the retention of this article based on Wikipedia policies rather than on one's own personal opinions, that might make a difference in this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel, tagging on to what Wikidan61 said I think it ought to be noted that wp:primary as well as everything else about sourcing (wp:v, wp:rs and so on) are actually for the protection of article subjects as much as they are for the protection of wikipedia. Yes protection, not convenience. Without the ability to independently verify truth it is impossible to know if information inserted into an article is true or not. the requirement that every fact is proven true in a way that can be verified and every article contains only those on whom there is verified importance protects subjects from unverified half-truths and lies as well as protecting the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole. I never understand COI article writers fighting over RS and sourcing requirements, they are there to protect them as much as anything. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for renewing the article so I can have more time to clean it up. This was my 1st Wiki article, and I am really learning about Wiki syntax, etc. I thought I could just cram in all the details originally and come back and clean it up later. It's getting there but needs more work. Anyways, I just left Japan for awhile and got to Texas so I'll have time to clean it up. Appreciate your understanding during this trying time. 70.140.96.75 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article quite a bit to reflect more direct points and also mentioned the word "hippie" earlier in the article as mentioned. The result is much easier to read. I'm also trying to find a copy of The Gator article mentioning Ginny. Please let me know your comments if anything needs to be changed in the meantime. Thanks! Gaggleoffools (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my stars and garters, that "hardly anyone" at WP "knows me" makes Ginny Good non-notable? Let's all live in a solipsistic submarine. One of the strengths of WP is that, as I understand it, it was designed to encourage hitherto "unknown" sources to come out the woodwork and make worthwhile contributions to its living body of knowledge. Virginia Good was a major, heavy-duty catalyst in the ongoing phenomonon of the culture of the sixties. How does one define and verify the effects of catalysts? They don't do diddly themselves and yet without them the reactions everyone goes around bragging about wouldn't have happened. There are subtleties that go on among blunt facts. If you ignore the subtleties the facts are worthless. I wrote a book that quantifies Ginny as such a catalyst, that shows her subtle influence on the "notable" people with whom she interacted. The kid who wrote the article about her READ the book, recognized the significance of those qualities, and wrote an article about her for WP. She didn't just "hang out" with all the notable people mentioned above (and a bunch more mentioned in the book), she interacted with them, she influenced them, she affected them, she had a hand in making them "notable," and making their contributions worth sticking in WP. Let's spend more time looking a gift horse in the mouth. G.

96.39.165.78 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This is an unusually long AfD to relist, but I feel that some of Mr. Jones's concerns have still gone unaddressed (partly because the one-liner "delete" !votes are not enough to say much). Do the reviews make the book notable? If the book does not make her notable, is it because the author is affiliated with the subject or because it is not significant enough? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the lack of notability and relevant references. I fail to see how the Amazon review page is a reference, as it falls under self-published sources (not to mention that the quote is taken from a profile named 'Hank Harrison', supposedly the same Hank Harrison who was the manager for the Grateful Dead, yet this book review is the only activity on said Amazon account). Also, notability is not inherited. Famous people knowing her does not make her notable. She did nothing notable other than apparently "knowing people". This is not enough to warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia, especially without relevant third-party sources to verify her notability, which are not in the article, and I was unable to find any through various search engines. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Even if the biography passed WP:RS muster, which I would think unlikely, one source does not confer notability. I can't find any other sources that even mention her, much less cover her in the requisite detail. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've mentioned before (a point which may have been lost in the noise), the book received some good reviews, and apparently an award. Thus, the book might pass WP:NB, and, as an award-winning author, the author of the book might pass WP:CREATIVE. However, since the book is essentially a "mostly true" memoir of the author's experiences with the subject, the subject herself does not pass WP:BIO. I emphasize the "might" in the prior sentence because I don't actually believe either of those things to be true, but that is a topic for another AFD, should an article be created on either of those subjects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, boys and girls, that Hank Harrison would go to all the trouble of creating an Amazon profile just to talk about Ginny Good fifty years after he knew her has to say something about her "notability." I don't lie. The Audio Book of Ginny Good is the best, most important work of literary art made anywhere in the world so far this century. Listen to it and see for yourselves. It's free. Here's a whole page of reviews, including the Hank Harrison review:

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggrev.html

This one's kind of slick...I left it out of the others I listed above:

http://www.chronogram.com//issue/2004/07/bookshelf/reviews.php

WP devotes a lot of bandwidth to "hippies" and has thus far ignored the definitive books about San Francisco in the sixties, i.e., "Ginny Good" and "The Audio Book of Ginny Good." As the title of said book, Ginny's gotta have some kind of notability. Here's an excerpt from Chapter Twelve which takes place in March of 1964 and says more about the "origins" of "hippie" culture than any Wiki article I've read...and that's just half a chapter out of thirty-five.

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/audio/GGch12clip.mp3

All that WP says about hippies "Ginny Good" sums up in two short paragraphs:

"...the whole hippie thing was over by 1966. A few minds got blown on acid. That was it. The culture was ripe. It had nothing to do with the war or civil rights or free speech. All that riding around in flower-power VW busses was the commercialization of the experience. The music, long hair, beads, dope, bare feet, brown rice, free love, Mr. Natural, psychedelic art, Timothy Leary turning and tuning and dropping, Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid hogwash, Cassady tooling Kesey's Merry Pranksters around in their funky bus—all that was nothing but advertising by people who'd already taken acid to get other people to take acid, and by then the advertising was getting mistaken for the only thing that really went on. A few minds got blown on acid. That was it."

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/ggsyn22.html

"Then it was the summer of 1967, "The Summer of Love." Scott McKenzie sang his dork song about how everybody ought to go to San Francisco and wear some fucking flowers in their hair. It was far out. It was groovy. It was over. Then it was early October, the Fall of Love. All the hippies gave Haight Street a funeral and Ginny got her ass thrown in jail. The guards squirted mace in her face. The skin peeled away from around her eyes. She looked like a raccoon."

http://everyonewhosanyone.com/audio/GGch23m.mp3

That the book is not an "original source" 'cause Ginny didn't write it isn't entirely accurate, either. She did write some of it, like this for instance:

"Sandy is a total hippie who was living with the Beach Boys in Malibu and now is with prospectors in the desert teaching Dean Martin's daughter how to lose her ego. They cluck their tongues about what bad shape Mia Farrow and Nanci Sinatra's heads are in, altho Miss Farrow gave away her clothes and is living ascetically, 'she just can't give up her image.' I would certainly like to see my sister after reading her letters. She hikes barefoot in the desert forever, and she used to deride my mystical propensities. She is an Aquarian—Pisces cusp—which goes right along with what she is now doing. An absolutely rebellious, unconventional mystic. I sort of envy her."

"The Autoboigraphy of Alice B. Toklas" wasn't written by Alice, or did you know that already? G.

96.39.167.145 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but maybe Userfy to allow this to be converted into a a properly written and sourced article about the book. Here's independent confirmation that the book won the 2005 Independent Publisher Book Award for Autobiography/Memoir.[17] That plus the other press (for example the interesting Guardian review) might support a book article. The Independent Publisher article, entitled "Way Cool: Gerard Jones Finally Gets Published! The long-suffering creator of the popular Everyone Who's Anyone In Publishing website gets his book published. So why is he still so cranky?" is useful background as well. This AfD has become deeply confused, but I agree with WikiDan61 that the evidence just isn't here to support the notability, in the Wikipedia sense, of the subject of this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't know how lucky you are. I had all kinds of eloquent stuff written in here that would've demolished your craven notion of "notability" and just as I was about to save it lightning knocked my computer out for about one second and it all went away. Rats. Oh, well. If you stick in the book, which according to the Library of Congress is a biography, wouldn't it be sort of silly not to stick in the subject of the biography, i.e. the girl named Ginny Good? I say don't stick in either of them. Who needs more hype disguised as reliable information? Not me. G.

96.39.167.145 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Puth

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

Declined BLPPROD (declined as the article had a Youtube video attached when the tag was placed), but also relatively fairly marked as BLP unsourced, the article lacks, and I was unable to find, reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage to establish notability under the general notability guideline, and I don't see evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources at all. OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits Reviews

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

It looks like this article is really well sourced, but in reality the vast majority of the citations are not attributed to reliable sources. Does not appear to be a particularly notable website. The one ref [18] that does appear to be a reliable source is a general article on porn review sites that briefly mentions the existence of this website. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree that the vast majority of citations are not cited to reliable sources. XBIZ and AVN are the two main trade journals of pornography and are probably the most reliable source on the industry. However, reviewing the articles demonstrate that they are almost all press releases which are not independent and can not be used to establish notability or the mention of the website is trivial/ancillary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Morbidthoughts. In particular, XBiz is a component of a public relations business, and it's difficult, at best, to separate the genuinely independent share of its coverage, which seems relatively small, from the press releases, presskit rewrites, and generated promotion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlyMe (Maldivian Airline)

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

Non-notable new company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Probably should have been Speedy deleted, but the CSD was removed for the invalid reasons. ttonyb (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not much of an article or an airline but I don't think that it deserves to be deleted. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You have not specified why, using Wikipedia criteria, this should be kept. Just saying it does not deserve to be deleted does not make it notable. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There just doesn't seem to be any information in independent reliable sources. Even the official website gives nothing more than an address and phone number. The details of the single plane they plan to operate are on several websites, but I don't know the reliability of these sites. In any case this would be barely enough information for inclusion on a list article. I'm no expert, but it does give the impression of something that will actually happen, so no prejudice against recreation when there is verifiable things to say. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The airline isn't an imaginary one. It has just been established as clearly indicated by the sources which I believe are reliable. I believe that the article has enough scope for expansion especially when the airline begins operating scheduled flights. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of existence, but an issue of notability. There are 2 references in the article and they are basically a copy of one another. Please read notability and WP:CRYSTAL. ttonyb (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The brand had been launched very recently and airline will start operation within the next few months. Refer the website www.skyliner-aviation.de for some additional reference and search Maamigili, Maldives on Google earth to find the airline's base. This is a domestic airline which is scheduled to start soon.The points in the text could be verified by two online news publishers in the country for this Domestic Airline. This is worth keeping and can be further developed. There are no false information or copyright infringements in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam FW (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Adam FW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is not an issue of false information or copyright infringement, but an issue of notability. There are 2 references in the article and they are basically a copy of one another. The www.skyliner-aviation.de reference is nothing more that a listing that does not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Please read notability and WP:CRYSTAL. ttonyb (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator did not state a reason for deletion in the nomination. WP:CRYSTAL states, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable..." References in the article show notability; and in accordance with policy, research in the Maldives can be expected to produce more. WP:RS is content policy, see WP:N#NNC. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually I did indicate the article is non-notable. The references do not show notability, there is only one news report, the other is a copy of that one and the other "references" are only listings. So, there is only on secondary reference that meets reliable sources requirements. This is hardly enough to support notability. Research may show more, but one cannot support an article's notability on speculation. ttonyb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public-transport airlines are public sector institutions which means that governments give such airlines attention, the public makes themselves aware of their services, and are generally notable. Government officials fly in public-transport airplanes, so there is a strong bias to give public-transport airlines regulatory attention. In this case, even though the airline has not flown, I have found a Maldives certification for the first airplane (see article). There is also international attention, including the German website mentioned above, and a [web page] dedicated to the new airline (both now in the article). Given that this airline has not flown a passenger and doesn't have an IATA code, I would prefer that this article be boldly moved to the incubator until it has both, and sidestep AfDs like this one and possible claims of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ONEEVENT. However given spectacles like United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics where we can check every day now on the latest medal totals for the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics, I'm not sure that Wikipedians as a group would want this particular article to be incubated. So I think we just have to accept that the article meets notability criteria as it is, including the WP:CRYSTAL criteria for anticipated events. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – None of your reasons support the Wikipedia definition of notbaility. As indicated above the references do not show notability, there is only one news report, the other is a copy of that one and the other "references" are only listings. So, there is only on secondary reference that meets reliable sources requirements. Articles such as United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics have no bearing on this AfD or the notbaility of this article. Unless you can show how this article meets notbaility criteria, there is no reason to accept it is notable. ttonyb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is clearly notable. Even though there is one source, the airline isn't a hoax! It has been established but hasn't started flying yet. So it's worth keeping the article. Dear nom, if you want the article to be deleted, why are you cleaning it up? Nomination of the article is just a waste of time of other editors. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In spite of your insistence, a single reference does not establish notability. In addition, your reference to the company not being a hoax implies you do not understand one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not based on truth, but rather verifiability. If one cannot support an article with adequate verifiable, secondary references, then the article does not meet notability requirements. As far as your comment about "waste of time", I do not feel improving the quality of Wikipedia content is a "waste of time". If you do, then I suggest you take a Wikibreak. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan nod

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

This "sales technique" doesn't appear to be widely adopted outside of its own inventor's training products. The references provided are of very low quality and there are a mere handful of articles on Google. Not really a notable sales of marketing technique. Article creator is a single-edit account with a spammy edit summary. Suspect probably a promotional article. The Land (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a "sales technique" that consists of nodding at one of the items on a menu or wine list. Some fellow named Sullivan wants to claim that he discovered this and turned it into a method. Seems a clear case of self-promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while Sullivan-shaking-our-heads. Yes, some people may do a little nod when they want you to buy something. No, it isn't widely called a Sullivan nod (at least not outside of the Sullivan household and his classes). Also, the article says it works 60% of the time, which doesn't strike me as an outstanding figure for a trailblazing sales technique. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation

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

Bizarre mixture of things already included in other articles, non-scientific speculation, and discussions about the attribution of some works supposedly (not) by him. The section on the background is already included in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life. The attribution of his works is discussed in List of works by Leonardo da Vinci. This leaves us with the section "Leonardo mysteries", with one which is included in Speculation about Mona Lisa, leaving us in the end only with the section on the Da Vinci Code, which is discussed in the article on that book and in Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code.

So we have an article with three very loosely related parts (the scientific discussion of his perosnal life and of his works, and the popular speculation by people like Dan Brown) which are already included in (sections of) dedicated articles. Fram (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An original essay and a content fork, both. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful (sourced) content to Leonardo da Vinci. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The article was created recently and has remmained incomplete. However, there was solid intent behind its creation.

Leonardo, probably more than any historic person in modern times has generated speculation and attribution. Much of thhe speculation and attribution, and even some of the recent scientific investigation is so unlikely and unfounded as to be almost ludicrous in nature. However, it goes on continually, and as Wikipedia's major contributor on Leonardo, I am the person who gets to deal with it, ad infinitum.

I bundled together a great mass of the least Encyclopedic speculations and attributions and put them all together under one clear heading. The one thing they have in common is that they are all about Leonardo.

This page provides a place where people can look up the various theories and track them down, either in novels, on line etc.
It is designed specifically inorder to keep less-encyclopedic material out of the main pages, but still give the fact that such theories exist an encyclopedic statement. Tis stuff does exist, in vast quantities, and the fact of its existence reflects the enormous fame and attraction of the character of Leonardo da Vinci.
It is my intention that the wilder theories concerning the major works Mona Lisa and The Last Supper will all end up on this page rather than cluttering up the main pages on those articles. Bona fide art historians have never seriously suggested that Mona Lisa is a self portrait. Neither have they seriously suggested that John in the Last Supper is Mary Magdalene. This stuff doesn't belong in the main articles. It belongs in this new article, along with the initials in her eyes etc. However, it takes time to transfer the stuff and write it in.
Much of the content in several sections has been placed there by an editor Murray Menzies who has lots of ideas, but has yet to grasp the finer points of writing for wiki, in particular the POV. The contributions need serious editing.
I'm having difficulty getting back to sort it out, partly because of ongoing problems with my service provider. It is increasingly hhard to upload stuff and a minor edit can take 6 tries and 15 minutes wasted. I end up frigging around instead of making major contributions.

Amandajm (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that at present many of the topics to be dealt with are at this point in time, merely headings waiting to be padded out. Most of the paintings attributed here don't have their own page and don't warrant one. They can be dealt with here in a single paragraph, giving more information than in the list of attributed works, but not as much as a required for a monograph. "Christ Carrying the Cross" is a case in point.

Please do not decide to delete my work hastily, if you are not fully aware of the problems, and if you are not keeping an eye on "Leonardo" topics online, in the press and on Wikipedia.

Amandajm (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fram's comments: The introductions to all the major Leonardo articles contain a small amount of biographical/general material, and some of the intro repeats part of the main article. However, in each case the introduction is just what it is supposed to be, tailored to the content of the article it introduces. The material quoted here from Gardner and other sources is equally pertinent to the general article and an as introduction to this present article. That is why it is here. A wiki-user ought not feel under obligation to read a vast biographical article, in order to comprehend this one. Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that I see Leonardo's baptismal certificate! Oh, kidding ... delete. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - synthesis. Also crazy title Greglocock (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH, content fork, or essay, or a little bit of each. I don't see anything in this that doesn't instead belong in one of the other articles about da Vinci (Leonardo da Vinci, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, or Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci), and I don't see any reason that these disparate topics should be split out and lumped together from those articles in this conglomeration. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the multiple use of "or" here telling; a shotgun rationale, aka throwing acronyms against the wall and hoping one sticks. Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR has been asserted but not shown; I can only trust the closer will allow for this, as there is no way to answer it other than with another assertion, and I don't knowingly do assertions. Grinning inside at 'both OR and FORK', as they are mutually exclusive, unless the original article was OR also.

The number of people on Wikipedia who understand the concept of synthesis of facts in multiple sources to support a conclusion not supported by any of those sources separately, and know to use 'synthesis' to describe only that definition, has always seemed to be very small to me; in fact, I cannot remember the last time I saw anyone use it correctly.

"loosely related parts" is the best rationale, and would seem to be leading to the problem with the title as well. However, the title: "Hypotheses and theories concerning Leonardo da Vinci", or similar, would cover all of the content, and if you think that is OR, then, with all due respect, you do not understand the NOR rule either.

The article has always been well sourced, but it has been expanded as well; I feel confident that Amandajm can improve it further.

Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Per your amusement that I contend something can be both OR and a FORK, you have a strange sense of humor. We might have a biography of George W. Bush and a fork article called George W. Bush's love of beanie babies fostered at Yale. The former may be non-OR but dealing with his time at Yale, the later pure OR from start to finish. Both a FORK and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We can agree, however, that SYNTHESIS is an anachronistic "Wiki Horror" — which will remain against the rules at WP for all time to come like some obscure verse of Leviticus since it came down the mountain with Moses. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Logic like this is why I never have time to edit articles. I repeat, nothing can be both a FORK and OR. The article you describe is OR only. The OR is added to his time at Yale, therefore it is not a FORK of the original material. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend entirely upon how much time each spent describing his time at Yale. If they both spent a lot, it would also be a FORK. By the way, how many angels do you reckon can dance on the head of a pin? I'm going with SIX. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Illuminati Quiz

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

Article about an unremarkable game associated with a college. Article itself is a copy/paste of another website, possibly failing OR. Strikerforce (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event is a national level quiz and is a brand image in itself in India. The several news reports in prominent Indian newspapers and the fact that it has been conducted for three consecutive years proves that the event is not "failing".spillai3 10:05, 16 March 2011 (IST)

Keep Secondary press coverage shows the event is notable. The article just needs to be improved. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Press coverage from secondary media.. Improvements needed. But delete, No.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copy/paste all gone, material wikified, memorial downplayed. The quiz question led me on a merry little chase, though. There may never have been someone by the name of Giuoco Piano, it turns out. Whether Gioachino Greco was the person responsible for the Giuoco Piano defense, and whether he was a monk remains unclear; he bequeathed his money to a Jesuit order. It is possible that Gioachino Greco was responsible for 2 chess tactics and not just one. Anarchangel (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix King (disambiguation)

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

Considering that the article on Phoenix is yet another disambiguation page and that the article List of Monster Rancher monsters no longer exists, I think there's at least only two topics on this subject, and WP:DAB specifically disallows that. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only three entries, of which one doesn't even belong on the page and one doesn't have its own article. No need for disambiguation. JIP | Talk 07:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cleaned and expanded the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no actual Phoenix King article of any sort in the first place to speak about a disambiguation, no clear primary topic or, let's say, notable topics. If anything, List of Warhammer Fantasy characters should have a dablink mentioning Phoenix King redirects there, and those looking for Ozai might want to look up the term on Avatar Wiki. It is not clear whether the Korean animated movie with "Phoenix King" in the title has been referred to as just "Phoenix King" as it is not in the English title, and the movie itself may not pass the notability guidelines for film. All in all, this is trying to disambiguate obscure or minor things.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a reasonable page that distinguishes between four distinct uses of the term. I've no opinion as to the primary topic, but whether there is a primary topic is a separate discussion from whether to delete the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Better handled with a redirect hatnote in List of Warhammer Fantasy characters pointing to Ozai. No evidence that Phoenix-bot Phoenix King is referred to as "Phoenix King", and the tag team reference is quite obscure. --Muhandes (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tag team reference is quite obscure, agreed. The Warhammer Fantasy character is also obscure, as is possibly the film. Three obscure topics with an ambiguous possible title need disambiguation. Obscurity is not a barrier to disambiguation, as long as the obscure topic is in Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're half-convinced,[19] if the best service to the reader (disambig page) is deleted, the second-best service would be to delete the redirect as well, so that readers entering the title in the search box land on search results, rather than on the obscure Warhammer Fantasy topic page with no indication on how to get to the other obscure topic they sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a legitimate dab page. The film article twice gives the title as just "Phoenix King", and the wrestler is referred to in several articles other than the one cited. And we also might add "The Phoenix King" as the first part of the three-episode Avatar: The Last Airbender series finale Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle. I'm all for deleting useless dab pages, but this one isn't.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some of it a bit marginal but does no harm.PamD (talk)
Comment: I have changed the redirect so that it now points to High Elves (Warhammer), where there is actually information about the Phoenix King, rather than just to the list of characters which included a couple of holders of the title. I think I tied up all the loose ends. PamD (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now stands. bd2412 T 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that, if kept, the disambiguation page should be at Phoenix King, and the current Phoenix King should be moved to Phoenix King (Warhammer) (and remain a redirect). Given the relative obscurity of all topics, it appears highly doubtful the Warhammer one constitutes the primary topic (in fact, various Google searches would give the edge to Avatar: the Last Airbender, but I wouldn't consider that one the clear primary topic either).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. 18:47, 29 March 2011 Wizardman (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Manglu Charan Biswal" ‎ (WP:BLPPROD: Nominated for ten days with no sources present in the article) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manglu Charan Biswal

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

Struggling to see the notability here - the article is a mess & has been PRODed before. Sitush (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD~~ Changing to no consensus with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Darkness (novel)

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

Prod removed without reason. Non-notable book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. —Gƒoley Four— 02:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a prodder - didn't realize you had prodded it first. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the book in question has been reviewed in the usual places, and it has also appeared in other published sources, such as [20]. I'm not sure that the article as currently written is particularly helpful, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Harris (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sibelius Software. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auralia (Ear Training Software)

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy declined. Last AFD had no discussion whatsoever after two weeks. Written like an advertising; anyone who uses "award winning" should be slapped with a trout for one of the most overused and meaningless phrases in history. Sources are thin. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - support the merge to Sibelius Software as proposed by AndrewWTaylor in Afd that was just closed as no consensus. Reasoning - this product is currently distributed by Sibelius Software, and as written is largely promotional in content, with a lot of overly specific information (hardware requirements, etc.)Dialectric (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Elfiky

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

While I am unable to judge the merits of the Arabic language Wiki article, for our purposes, Google reveals no WP:RS indicating he meets our WP:GNG, from what I can determine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Elfiky is the first expert on NLP and self-development in the Arab world. Also, he's known in the West.--Salah Almhamdi (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Can we verify any of that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is the founder of Ibrahim Efiky International Enterprises Inc. which consists of:
    - Canadian Training Center of Power Human Energy
    - Canadian Training Center of Neuro-Linguistic Programming
    - Canadian Training Center of Hypnotherapy
    - http://ibrahimelfiky.com/ctc_eng.html --Salah Almhamdi (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But can you point to any WP:RS that indicates those companies/entities are notable? As you know, simply writing a book, creating companies, and calling oneself an authority are not enough, unfortunately. We always need to be able to verify, with sources not associated with the article subject. regards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        He is also the founder of Neuro Conditioning Dynamics™ (NCD™) and of Power Human Energy™ (PHE™). ******http://mmahfouzcorp.blogspot.com/2008/10/dr-ibrahim-el-fiky.html
        
        www.chamberoman.com/images/TRprogDesc.doc
FYI: «While I am unable to judge the merits of the Arabic language Wiki article...» The Arabic-language article contains essentially the same information as the English one but with even less sourcing. --Abanima (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case I was not clear enough, I support deleting this article: given the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject person, I believe the subject lacks notability, and the article looks like original research and, probably, promotion. Besides, I failed to find any information on the web about University of Metaphysics of Los Angeles where he is said to have earned his PhD. --Abanima (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. Having been previously prodded makes this ineligible for WP:SOFTDELETE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Voyageurs Inc.

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

Little better than an advertisement, this unsourced article has survived for nearly five years. It was previously prodded and deprodded, so, as a procedural matter, a prod is out of order. Hence I'm bringing it here. B (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant third-party sources are in the article to establish notability, and I was unable to find any online. It is not notable, and is simply an advertisement. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FuelTrax

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

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Article was previously deprodded and thus I'm bringing it here. B (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a product that apparently keeps track of fuel on ships. No evidence that this product has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, this falls well short of the required level of coverage an/or impact that WP:CORP requires. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Tag or no tag, this discussion bas been open long enough. However, I don't like rewarding the constant removal of the AFD tag from the article so anybody is free to renominate this article for deletion at any time. If it's renominated then the AFD tag needs to stay on the article until the AFD is closed by an administrator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrows bad seeds

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

Some coverage in very minor places (blogs, alt papers), but no other reliable sources to meet criteria at WP:BAND. Band is signed to a tiny label ("local independent record label" according to this article); appeared on actual TV recently, otherwise there's very little coverage. tedder (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have no affiliation with this article, and I do think it needs work; however, I do believe it is notable. Their appearance on the Late Late Show is very notable (I have added a source). I also think their appearance at areas such as the House of Blues is notable.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close Discussion It has been 5 days since the last post, and a consensus has clearly not been reached. This should be removed.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that statement continues to say WP:BLP1E. In other words, if the band is only notable for one appearance on one TV show, it's probably not sufficient. tedder (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, your source covers notability for a single person, not for a band. Second, your reasoning refers to one appearance in news media, not any tv show. This band has been invited to the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and they have also performed at the House of Blues. WP:BAND states that if performing on TV is their only claim they are not notable; however, their other claims to notability compound on their TV appearance.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion There is clearly not consensus that this article should be deleted.Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Maxxbeach has continually been deleting the AfD notice from the article, which may somewhat explain the lack of response in this AfD. I'm also somewhat disturbed by User:Ryan Vesey's eagerness to close this as no consensus, although I'm going to AGF and chalk it up to simple eagerness. That being said, Delete per lack of reliable independent coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The AfD tag was present on the article from 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC) to 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC), and mostly continuously after 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC). It would be appropriate to consider this one to have been listed since 15 March rather than 9 March. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you concerned that I want the discussion to be closed. The afd has been up for two weeks with almost no discussion. I am fairly certain that discussions are supposed to be closed within 7 days. I am also fairly certain that there needs to be consensus that it should be deleted; if there is no consensus the page stays up.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (Venture Rides)

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

As far as I can tell, this ride fails the GNG (as there isn't any notability guideline for roller coasters). There is an evident lack of notability, and the article makes claim to none. Someone might also find a place to merge. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom said it themself, there isn't any notability guideline for roller coasters. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? The lack of a specific guideline means that AfD can't remove the article? That can't possibly be what you mean, can it? Because that makes no sense. All specific notability guidelines derive from the general notability guideline, which applies to everything. gnfnrf (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - MoonLichen, just because there are no specific notability guidelines on the different types of carpets found at Lowes doesn't mean we keep an article on each one. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - No sources to satisfy GNG, and I couldn't find any. I consider the delete weak because there are reference pages to the ride on several databases, just none that I think look reliable. I find it possible that some print carnival ride encyclopedia may exist which could be used to source the article reliably. gnfnrf (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just note that reliable sources alone do not prove notability. I don't know exactly how a roller coaster is proved notable, but a database entry on it (of which I'm sure there are many), does not give it a reason to exist on wikipedia. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What WP:GNG says, as I expect you know, is that the presumption of notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I found significant coverage in independent sources, so all I commented on was that I didn't think they qualified as reliable. But, if someone were to show up with a similar source that DID look reliable, I wouldn't be surprised. gnfnrf (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh...I see. My findings were that the information on the web about the Cobra (and there was a little bit) wasn't really significant. One-line database entries do not notability make. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanTone Records

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

Prod removed by author with no other changes. Lacks reliable sources to establish notability of an organization. tedder (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Andreoni

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

Not notable. Refs are largely concert announcements or reviews, awards discussed all appear to be student awards. In fact most of the entry is about his accomplishments as a student. Hairhorn (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, the article reads like a resume, and I can't find sources that show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Anderson (trainer)

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

I don't believe he has sufficient independent notability. Delete and redirect to Barry Bonds. --Nlu (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anderson has been the subject of ongoing media attention in Northern California (and more widely) for eight years, and the BALCO steroids scandal involves many other athletes than just Barry Bonds. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable. He was a trainer for various people, not only bonds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.164.183.42 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Yes, Anderson has been a trainer for other athletes — but did he derive any notability based on his association with those athletes? I think the answer is a clear "No." Most athletic trainers do not get any notability at all, and Anderson would not have absent his involvement not only with Barry Bonds but, specifically, with the criminal case against Bonds. There is no independent notability here. --Nlu (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, Kato Kaelin is a radio and television personality — but did he derive any notability based on his radio and television work? I think the answer is a clear "No." Most radio and television personalities do not get notability worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and Kaelin would not have absent his involvement not only with O.J. Simpson but, specifically, with the criminal case against Simpson. Is there no independent notability there? --Yayro 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:BASIC). I think the Kato Kaelin analogy is a good one. Trainers of professional athletes are not necessarily notable, however, Anderson has played a relatively major role in the BALCO and Bonds controversies. Location (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response on the analogy to Kaelin: I don't think the Kaelin article has ever been subjected to a deletion discussion, and therefore is inapposite. The fact that it was not proposed for deletion is not itself a community consensus that it should not be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The details of his contempt charges are important, and while they might be retained in the initial merger, they would quickly be lost in subsequent editing of the main article. -- 110.49.248.163 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lusk (minister)

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

As a member of the Christian denomination in which Lusk was a minister for a long time, I must reluctantly nominate this article for deletion: I've researched the church's history extensively and can testify that there simply isn't enough material published on this man to warrant a Wikipedia article. You can find small bits of information on him from a county history (pages 358, 527, 951-952) and from a history of his denomination (pages iv, 84, 273, 337, 369, 376, 406, 420, 421, 427, 568, 569, 747, and 780), but except for the biography on pages 568/569 of the church history, none of this is anywhere close to what we'd call substantial coverage. The article currently cites some pages by David Steele, but as the two men were close colleagues, it can hardly be said to be independent coverage. I have access to some other information about him, but despite its creation in the early and middle nineteenth centuries, it's never been published, so it can't be used for this article. Even including the biographical information I've mentioned, there's really not enough to write a decent encyclopedia article on him: he was simply a country church pastor in rural southeastern Pennsylvania and southeastern Indiana who never attracted enough attention to get enough significant coverage for Wikipedia notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree about the importance of the person in question. His trial and dismissal in 1825 was one of three or four significant trials and depositions conducted by the party that would later become the "New Lights." He was both a catalyst and victim of the ecclesiastical politics of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. I initially began to put up the information to hope to fish out more information. Isn't that one of the benefits of Wikipedia? By placing what is known in an article, others are encouraged to add to the sum. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the purpose of this endeavor. If its purpose is simply to emulate, copy and cover the popular, what good is it for stimulating expansive thought? Yes, I have a broad interest in Reformed and Dissenting Reformed movements. Since I only began yesterday to contribute, I don't understand all the means of citing and adding sources. I was trying to link to things readily available online. However, since my personal library contains nearly 35,000 volumes in this field (e.g. I have John McMillan's copy of the Westminster Confession passed on from his father, etc.), and I happen to have read extensively in it, I thought I might have something to add to the web. If this is transgressing, I beg your forgiveness. Nonetheless, as someone with a MORE than extensive knowledge in both Reformed Presbyterian history and classic Reformed theology, I beg to differ as to the importance of the man. Is a person known merely by his or her biographical sketch? or is it possible that the cumulative impact becomes most apparent through following the seeming "rabbit trails" of Wikipedia? I had planned to write biographical sketches on otehr personages in this area as well, I am not sure if I ought to waste my time. Although some of the information appears in much the same language as Glasgow's biography, there are added flourishes from Steele's Memoir and early minutes of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod have been consulted. At some point, I had hoped to delve into the controversy tht led to his expulsion from the ministry. This involved brushes with Freemasonry (at a time in American history when it was a very hot topic) and the relationship between Church and State (still a hot topic). I have tried to lay down the lineaments of a biography that will lend itself to natural expansion. The reasonfor the "dead" links to Samuel Wylie and others was I had hoped to go on and begin filling them. Since the Covenanting movement, through Alexander Craighead et al, had direct influence on the American revolution, and the Reformed and Dissenting bodies have exerted such a disproportionate influence in America and elsewhere, it might have been nice to pursue those "rabbit trails." Alas! alas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueSteelite (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you not familiar with some of TrueSteelite's terms — see the last sentence of Old and New Light; "Glasgow's biography" is what you'll get if you click the "history of his denomination" link that I provided; we have an article on Alexander Craighead; John McMillan was an eighteenth-century minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland. To respond to what TrueSteelite has said: yes, it's a good idea to put in what's known in hopes that others will know more. The problem here is that I know enough about him to say confidently that there's really not enough material about Lusk that's been published in independent secondary sources to maintain an encyclopedia article about him. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind divulging your unpublished sources? That indicates there is more available. There is already more up on him than on many others who remain. Look at the entry for Alexander Craighead. Could more be written? Yes, I am sure. Isn't it helpful to have information about otherwise shadowy figures in history? I realize that we often fail of achieving all we would like by way of information, however, some context is always better than none. History dies when it is filled with names that are flat and bring nothing to the table. I understand that many in the Reformed Presbyterian Church and others would rather ignore the arcane. Each personage added is a bit of color to the portrait. I am, however, beginning to think that Wikipedia is not about maximizing information but rather selectively culling from the menu what can conveniently be ignored. I hope I am wrong. I do appreciate the photos of the gravesite (something I would not have discovered without this article).TrueSteelite (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your talk page, since that's really not an issue for this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A concern: some of the text of the article looks to be very similar to that in the Glasgow History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. However, as for notability, Lusk appears to have been the moderator of the Synod; it is my understanding that this is a very important role in Presbyterian denominations. The trial of someone so prominent would increase scholarly interest. Tchicken7 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RPCNA has always been very small, and he wasn't the moderator when he was tried on the (later-proven-false) fraud charges. When your church only has a few dozen congregations (mostly in rural areas) and it's the early nineteenth century, you're not going to get much of any coverage. As far as the text from the history: it was published in 1888, so there's no worry about copyright. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The moderator of Synod in the RPCNA has absolutely no authority (either official or unofficial) except for the few days annually that the Synod meets, and during that time he doesn't do anything except for presiding over meetings and appointing people to committees. When you're a minister in a denomination that only has a few ministers, and when the moderator must be a minister, you're pretty much guaranteed to get the spot. Today, the situation is different from Lusk's day (there are many more ministers, and a non-ministerial member of Synod was elected moderator a few years ago), but it's still mostly an honor: the moderator is always elected by acclamation, and although it's permitted, nobody ever runs for moderator, nominates a second person after a first nomination is made, or votes against the first nomination to be made. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been corrected and modified in accordance with public and private suggestions for its continued existence. If other changes need to be made, please let me know.TrueSteelite (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions still don't really help: the bulk of the content comes from the "history of his denomination" and "county history" sources that I linked in my original nomination statement, which don't provide detailed coverage, or from more documents by his not-at-all-independent close associate David Steele, who can't be considered a reliable source here — note that most of Steele's writings are polemics in some way or another, not the type of sources that we use to write encyclopedia articles. The citation to the "Extracts from the Minutes of Synod of 1825" (note that I own a complete copy of that year's minutes, not just the extracts) comes from a section that mentions him in passing: virtually all of his appearances in that year's minutes are observations that he showed up, presented papers, and other routine business, and there's nothing that gives him significant coverage. Finally, there's a citation to History Of Lawrence, Orange, And Washington Counties, Indiana, but it lacks a page number, and when I run a search for "Lusk" at the Internet Archive's copy of this book, I don't get any results at all. In short: there's still not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to maintain a proper article. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author, a new editor, is making sincere efforts to improve the article, which now has six references. It is not at all uncommon for article son religious topics to be referenced primarily by sources affiliated with the religion in question. I think this article meets the notability threshold, if just barely. Cullen328 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my comments above, none of them provide in-depth reliable coverage. Are any of the detailed sources published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject? Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In matters of religion (or biography prior to the latter part of the 20th century, I would add), as Cullen noted, it is necessary to reference sources "close" to the subject. Try writing a biography of Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or the Buddha using the strict construction of the guidelines you propose. Biography can be stripped of hagiography. At the same time, it is possible to give an accurate portrayal of the subject in accord with those who knew the subject. Any contemporary source begins with accounts from the subject and/or those close to him or her. Are not these witnesses "biassed"? People who actually know other people (not just acquaintances) are not, by their very nature, neutral. I can write an account that exhibits a certain distance and/or dispassion, but choice of material and source always involves a cerrtain "bias", though not always advocacy. I have sought to eliminate advocacy from what I recorded. I have begun sketching lineaments which make the subject worthy of note. I believe both his trial and deposition in 1825 as well as his secession in 1840 mark him as a person of interest and material importance in the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Additionally, although the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America is small, no history of it can be written within reference to the split in 1833, or 1840. In 1998, at the celebration of the bicentennial of Synod, the "Reformed Presbytery" and "Steelites" were mentioned several times (I have this on good authority). David Steele did not and could not constitute the Presbytery by himself. In fact, Lusk was the one who agitated some of the issues which drove the secession of 1840. The article continues to carry the "stub" status. What harm is there in letting it remain and as myself and, perhaps, others seek to discover and expand more information?TrueSteelite (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article appears to be well-referenced and currently being improved, subject appears notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article bears no relation to the article that was nominated for deletion. It has 30 references and a relevant external link, and a mere glance at the article, and the argument that there is not enough material for an article does not stand. Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced, a bit verbose perhaps, but a fine example of biography apt to be of interest to a specialist. That seems pretty straightforward and obvious. This challenge, on the other hand, is more difficult to comprehend... Carrite (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Carrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - The contributor seems to me to have used acceptable sources in keeping with Wikipedia's policies: "...primary sources are permitted if used carefully." "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The Robert Lusk entry in question thus far seems to have nothing which contravenes Wikipedia policies and has the benefit of providing useful information not otherwise readily available. Further, I think that the Wikipedia editor, Nyttend, who is advocating deletion should recuse himself from the matter. This is on the basis of his being raised in and belonging to the segment of the church in question from which Lusk withdrew. Even if he believes himself to be impartial (and even if in fact he is being impartial), the appearance is that he is not. --Dclachman (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (EST)

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

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

The result was Close - wrong venue Article tagged for CSD under promotional article. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:56pm • 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIT Station

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

unremarkable product, zero references in article, not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Largely promotional article. RadioFan (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Screen of Death

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

The notability of this colloquial term is not verifiable by reliable sources. Most of the referenced sources, which cannot be considered reliable sources, do not even use the term “black screen of death” - calling it instead “black screen issues”. Original research is unverifiable. Onthegogo (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Onthegogo (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on books, even limited to ones that give preview or full view, shows various reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth, describing symptoms, causes and remedies. Ditto with a search on scholar. The article is poorly sourced, possibly contains some original research, and should be improved. But the subject is clearly notable and deserves an article. An article should only be deleted if the subject is not notable, or the article contains material such as copyright violations or slander that has to be permanently removed for legal reasons. That is not the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:BEFORE. 951 Google News hits for the exact phrase. Anarchangel (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term. Article could use cleaning up, but it is notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Every participant in this AFD is the same editor. If someone wishes to renominate this in good faith then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rayzz

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

Delete - This is clearly a marketing article, and checking the edit history shows it was created by the company. Software is unremarkable and contravenes WP:POLICY. Phatwa (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the nom; please close seven days after 12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In line with WP:NOTADVERTISING 86.132.72.69 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — 86.132.72.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable noted re: advertising also. Cannot find any noteworthy references to this company or software that merit a mention according to Policy. 86.132.81.190 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — 86.132.81.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Both delete !votes in this discussion are from editors with few or no edits outside this discussion and both geolocate to the same city. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Politically Incorrect Guide. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties

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

No evidence that I can find that it meets the criteria at WP:NBOOKS Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not merge with the series article The Politically Incorrect Guide? Edgepedia (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indications are that the book is not widely covered by sources outside of Wikipedia. One hit on News, one true hit (the book itself) and two false on Books. One hit (the book itself) on Scholar. There are Google hits, but only press releases and sites advertising the book for sale. The subject shows enough flaws to delete, and I do not rest my arguments on article content, ever. However, it is worth consideration that the article represents a good deal of work in removing PoV content, and work thereafter, maintaining an article that is a beacon for anyone who, like the authors of the article and the book itself, is looking for a WP:SOAPBOX to stand on. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe people can sometimes sneak their POV into Wikipedia, but they have to try harder than this. It will hardly come as a surprise to many people that most Americans supported the Vietnam war, or that sections of the anti-war movement were for victory to the Vietcong. PatGallacher (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the other books in the series do have their own article, as you can see at Politically Incorrect Guide#Series. It may well be the case that some of them are more likely to attract controversy and media discussion (i.e. AIDS denialism in the P.I. Guide to Science... yikes) and thus be more notable, but as there already are several stand-alone articles relating to this series, we might as well try to look for some sort of bright-line as to what is notable and what is not here. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**I suppose I'll go ahead and vote to delete as this book doesn't seem to pass the threshold of book notability. Kansan (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think a better option is to redirect to The Politically Incorrect Guide and keep the history. Even if there's nothing notable to merge it's still a plausible search term and the article can be easily restored if there's more coverage later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with this. Kansan (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snelgrove

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

Questionable notability, contested prod. Founder of a coffee company that has expanded since his having left it. PK T(alk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. I met Tim a few times in the 1980s and based on what his company was like when he left it, I question whether he meets the bar for notability. I'm ambivalent about whether or not the article is kept, but if it is kept I hope it improves.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Founder of a notable company, and documented as such in reliable sources like the Toronto Star and Financial Post. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. COI is ad hominem, and instruction WP:CREEP / FORK (what I call a Clone) of the POV and RS rules. However, if as is likely, you do not agree, you should keep this article immediately, as it is clear the nominator has a conflict of interest with the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a COI issue with the subject. I put forward this AfD to determine whether or not the community could come to a consensus one way or the other regarding his notability. I have found very little in the way of reliable sources about him - not much more than passing mentions on sites like this one as opposed to, say, a known business journal or significant newspaper. PK T(alk) 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of a company doesn't necessarily need his own separate article — especially if it doesn't have any reliable sources in it. The company didn't become notable until after he sold it, for instance, so there's hardly a compelling claim to be made that he inherits notability from a company whose notability has precious little to do with him in the first place — and even the woman who bought it from him, and expanded it to the point that it could credibly belong in an encyclopedia, doesn't have her own article. So, as written, this is just an unreferenced BLP about a historical footnote, and Timothy's World Coffee already contains what little information we need about him anyway. And, for that matter, I'm saying all this as someone who regularly frequents a Timothy's franchise — so I can hardly be accused of conflating notability with whether I've heard of the topic or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boredly redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. Clearly not notable enough for his own own article, but the company is, and it's feasible that someone, one day, might use this fella as a search term. It's a fairly routine case for a redirect. Not very thrilling, but fits our policies so there we go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. Founding a company does not confer automatic notability. Not notable in own right. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. Article needs improvement and sourcing but the fellow is certainly notable enough to have an article. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pohnpei football team

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

Non-notable state level team. Another constituent island of micronesia, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yap football team. This team may be considered marginally more notable for tangential associations with others - Mark Watson's brother was their manager and they went on a tour sponsored by a cargo airline. None of this comes close to meeting WP:N in my opinion but thought full disclosure was best. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and this team has done nothing to merit its own article. Giant Snowman 13:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A state team which has done nothing of note. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 07:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNATMAP

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

Non-notable network protocol. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails GNG Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Christians Canada Inc.

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

No assertion of notability made: GNews brings up about 30 hits over the past few years, but no substantial coverage. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been scanning the ghits, and found one I am very tempted to add to the article, although how much notability it shows I leave to others to decide first. http://www.gaycalgary.com/magazine.aspx?id=26&article=1054 Peridon (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2009 Ganesh incident seems to have provoked a couple of dedicated articles, the first with hundreds of comments, indicating that it was an issue of some significance in Calgary. I've added that information to the article.
- Oh, and it should probably be moved to Concerned Christians Canada, which seems to be the generally recognized name. -- Theodolite ➹ 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be other organisations with very similar names - I found one that seemed to be to do with (but not part of) the Latter Day Saints). Makes searching difficult. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have moved the page to Concerned Christians Canada. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding the coverage in reliable sources. The elephant thing doesn't appear to have been significant, and the one or two articles on it are the only non-trivial coverage this group gets. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG for lack of indepth coverage. gets passing mentions in media. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and LibStar. PK T(alk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Editor

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

Non notable software product. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as above, no reliable coverage in 3rd party sources. Possible advert. Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied the below comment from the article talk page: -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This software is rather new I understand but has the large user base and links from well known websites cnet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbean1 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanologica AB

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

Insufficient data from verifiable reliable sources to establish notability; expresses a POV; and is an orphan. I requested speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 [21]. 76.18.115.64 removed the speedy tag without explanation[22]. Quasihuman (talk · contribs) disputed the speedy tag with explanation "dispute speedy deletion, article makes a claim to signifigance. Added neutrality tag."[23] and followed up with 'Just a note to say that I have removed the CSD tag which you placed on Nanologica AB because the article does make a claim to significance which may be credible: "They are the world’s leading developers and producers of mesoporous silica particles". I am not an admin, but I understand that any average editor can remove CSD tags that are not on articles that they created. The article may not meet the notability guidlines, and as yet, does not reliably source the claim to significance, so maybe an AFD is in order. Thanks,' on my user talk page[24]. The article now has three tags: POV; primary sources; and orphan. — Jeff G. ツ 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination. Article is about a business that was founded on a novel method for the synthesis of mesoporous silica and metal oxide particles. Any relevant information about the business or its method belongs in the article about mesoporous silica, rather than about this article with all its unreferenced claims about world leadership. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third party sources establishing notability turn up, currently there are none. Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am undecided, but I have found a source to indicate that the topic may be notable. Nanologica AB was a finalist in the materials section of the World Technology Awards. I'm sure that that on its own does not confer notability, and I don't know how reputable those awards are, but it may indicate that the company is well regarded in the industry, and there may be more sources out there. My source can be found here: [25].Quasihuman (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camerapedia

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

Non notable website (~~camerawiki~~camerapedia.org), one single news source in news (the other being just a mention of the site). No further independent sourcing. Low stability, especially since it was recently being taken over by Wikia (and moved to camerapedia.wikia.com) resulting in the formation of camera-wiki.org. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. (i) When you write Non notable website (camerawiki.org) do you perhaps mean Non notable website (camerapedia.org)? (ii) I'm puzzled by your statement that there's (a) one single news source in news yet (b) No independent sourcing; do you mean that the news source is not independent, or do you mean No other independent sourcing, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oops, yes, I meant camerapedia.org, have redacted that, and added a 'further'. All current sourcing is not independent from the subject, leaving only one single source (which is not used at the moment, but may be of interest). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. fails wikipedias inclusion criteria of our general notability guidelines. Non-notable Social wiki community for camera enthusiasts which recently was absorbed by wikia. Google news gives only one result(blog) about a non-notable spinoff site created in late january, which is not particularly relevant to the article in question here or helps establishing its notability. Further searching results in merely trivial coverage or mentions. No significant third-party coverage could be found --Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent coverage. Pburka (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://goodweave.org/about/rug_carpet_questions#section1.4

[2] www.goodweave.net

[3] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-moulden/goodweave-carpet-child-labor_b_834441.html

[4] ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/27/being-green-buying-rugs

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]