Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 17

< 16 October	18 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueBerry v2

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

I don't see coverage in reliable sources. Written in a first person tone makes me suspicious of its notability too. Cynof Gavuf 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 11:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most likely a self-promotion :( --GreyCat (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is just a variant of this[1] article, which is also up for deletion on notability and spam concerns. Datheisen (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable game engine having attracted no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, we already have List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 24 of spongebob

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

Article is a mess. Individual episodes of a children's cartoon don't need individual articles Cynof Gavuf 00:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per G1.--Giants 27(c|s) 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete Shouldn't even make it to AfD, it should be speedily deleted NOW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Suarez and Gio Rossi

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

Don't need a separate article for each pair of characters CynofGavuf (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is one sort of article where there is no point in a redirect. The relationship is (so far, at least) trivial, and the forum adduced as a reference seems very lightly visited and almost empty. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable shipper couple. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, these characters don't need an article of their own. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exmortis 3

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

Lack of coverage in reliable sources CynofGavuf (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if JayIsGames is considered a reliable source (nothing definite at WP:VG/RS): [2]. Even less sure about talkingaboutgames.com [3], but this is the only significant coverage I can find. At best, redirect to a list of Flash or Browser-based games. If JayIsGames is no good as a source, then delete. Marasmusine (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did put up for speedy deletion but was removed, but with administrator telling me it it's pretty subject in this case and should be left to the AfD. Nothing to cure notability concerns in the form of standard outside sources seems to appear anywhere I look or search. Neither the developer nor publisher have Wikipedia articles which makes the game all the more suspect. After looking through the edit history, I'm not at all surprised by the solicitation to have readers purchase... a user nearly identical account name has this editor seems to have gone around writing gushing reviews for the game despite a lukewarm metascore... probably neutrality concern that would need an outside rewrite. Actually, I'm more toward a keep than I was a few days ago when the CSD was removed, but still far from convinced it shouldn't be deleted. I'm going to remove the external link on the article page that is a purchase page for the product, also Datheisen (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no reason that game sites cannot count as reliable sources. However, I do find it strange that this game has a page while Exmortis 1 and 2 do not. I might recommend that someone who is familiar with 1 and 2 make pages for them, if they want this page to stay. If that happens, then I see no reason why this page must be deleted. Bibbly Bob (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... it's not that it's a games site source. It's that there are zero sources in the article, as in none. None listed. None cited. There but one external link, which is informational at best and self-promotional at worst. A link I deleted a few days ago was a direct link to purchase the game was of only slightly lower quality than the link left. Google search brings up almost exclusively company sites and blogs, neither of which are considered reliable sources except under extreme circumstances. Better still for evaluation is WP:GARAGE ...just substitute band with game. The only thing in the article that even proves the game exists is the iffy external link, since neither the developer nor the publisher have articles we can check against. As for creating new articles for the others? WP:ENN gives a decent explanation that even if something exists, or even if something closely related exists, you still need cited resources that can survive reliability check to justify an article Datheisen (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps he was referring to the use of JayIsGames as a possible source. Marasmusine (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh. Can't believe I was that dense. In any case, if that even wants to attempt to be used as a reliable source it would still need to actually be in the article as a reference. I'm of the opinion that it still really wouldn't help much... as is said in the comment below, its entry in Wikipedia specifically states that it's a blog but has picked up several contributors. That's questionable as a source for much of anything, and certainly not as a lone source. Datheisen (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I don't see the sources identified by Marasmurine as meeting WP:RS. Our article Jay Is Games, for example, describes that site as a blog and lacks any reliable source itself..--Peter cohen (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Technocracy Incorporated. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Technocracy Study Course

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

Previously deleted, recreated by the same user, who is also pretty much the sole significant contributor to the article and is prominently identified as being associated wiht its subject matter (see WP:COI). I just checked the references, only one has a mention to the words "study course" and that was "we created a kind of study course". So, while this article gives the appearance of being referenced, it doe not actually seem to cite sources actually discussing the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge some small amount of this into the article for Technocracy Incorporated. Make a redirect, and protect it. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is the precedent book which founded a social movement based on what is considered the first think tank in the United States from Columbia University Engineering Department, the Technical Alliance and the book contains the results of this groups Energy Survey of North America among other things. The social group which developed around the book, was the fastest growing social movement in the United States in the early 1930's. It was written by M. King Hubbert arguably the most notable geo scientist produced by America (Peak oil). It has a Pdf. link to the book itself, hosted by the original group, of which I am not a member. The official Social Security History website has a special section just on Technocracy scroll down to that section Modern Energy accounting is based on ideas from this book [4], which are now mainstream, and extensive notability as to ideas connected also formed the later basis of thermoeconomics- It is noted that another editor worked extensively on the article also in the ref/note citation area. This book is extremely notable as the precedent publication of the original group, and as far as any conflict of interest, it is noted that reliable sources and N.p.o.v. are the very basis of editing on Wikipedia. - skip sievert talk) 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per DGG JQ (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per DGG; no need to merge any content as SS has already spammed many other WP pages with info about the Technocracy Study Course. Johnfos (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I suggest you refactor your comment above. That is making an attack on an editor here. skip sievert (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) Guy, this is your second AfD nomination of the article. Per WP:DP Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. 2) WP:COI: WP:DP#Reasons_for_deletion does not list a conflict of interest as a reason for deletion. The reason given to delete this article does not have a valid basis. The primary editor, SS is not a member of the Technocracy group involved with writing the subject. Skip is a self-admitted Technocrat contributing to this article, but that is not a conflict of interest. I also edited the article having been interested in the background of M. King Hubbert of Peak oil fame. I have no conflict of interest between the subject - Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy and M. King Hubbert and Peak oil, nor do I really have any emotional ties to the subject. I am not a Technocrat, nor do I subscribe to their economic and social theories. I have spent quite a few hours checking and correcting references and correcting them, and re-writing parts of the article to fit what the references said. If you search my name, I am an engineer with ten patents and have published a book about Wi-Fi, but that is not a conflict of interest when I edit articles with engineering. Why are you not deleting the thousands of Pokemon articles written by Pokemon fans due to WP:COI? I'm sure many of the authors of Pokemon articles also contribute to discussion groups on the Internet. 3) Notability. I do not buy your made to look like it's referenced argument. I have looked at the references as a part of my contribution to the new article. We had a whole notability discussion on the new and revised article. Talk:Technocracy_Study_Course#Notable. Where were you in this discussion? Hmmmm? 4) WP:BIAS "Bias is not manifested only in article creation – deletion is a source of intellectual bias" Since this is your second AfD request on the same article, I must understand your bias in making this request. Why are you bent on deleting this article? Your profile is rather anonymous. Why? kgrr ^talk 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation Needed Skipsievert-- why were you in favor of deletion of the first version of this page on grounds the information was already available elsewhere, but then re-created the page on your own and are now standing firm behind it? Also, you failed to mention in your statements here that you were the primary author of the article being discussed here which in violation of the participation section guidelines within WP:AfD. I'm a firm believer of WP:AGF but I need an explanation as to why you violated policy to defend yourself. From your postings you seem to be a strict follower of WP:NPOV, you can surely appreciate why I think clarification would be helpful. Datheisen (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be speaking of this[Sustainability] edit war highly populated by the author of this article that's been shoved up to an ANI.

Sure. Number 1. as Jzg mentioned in the heading above, I started the article, I assume you read that? So what is the issue there? This is the only article I had made on Wikipedia and it did not turn out so well the first time around. Since then my skills have improved and I found a lot more information as to sourcing the information. Also JzG was cutting out a lot of dead wood articles connected to the subject, and I felt like cooperating with him also. I also voted to delete this one, put up by Jzg... Network of European Technocrats by a non notable group, now blocked for spamming and recreating their article multiple times, and, not really connected to the original group. The current information as to sourcing or linking refs is probably not available elsewhere given this way now since myself and another editor worked together on it collaborated on it in its present form which I think is pretty good in presentation, and the original group made an unabridged addition open source and here now also. Formerly the copy was an abridged edition...

So, as an article I thought the first article was not that hot, but think this one is very good and that this book is extremely notable in the present time. It actually formed the basis of Energy economics and later ecological economics along with some other information. skip sievert (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed Johnfos-- can you cite evidence of WP:CFORK to back up your claim? I will assume that's the meaning you had. Datheisen (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to Datheisen. Thank you for asking for more info. I'm not suggesting a fork so much as an inappropriate splattering of information about the TSC in many other articles, see [5]. The TSC seems to be SS's pet topic, and he advertised the course on his user page for some time, and provided a link to it [6]. For more of my thoughts on SS's POV-pushing in relation to Technocracy articles, see [7]. Johnfos (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Johnphos. This editor follows me around negatively and has for a long time, and also recently... examples here and is posting the Ani above inappropriately here in my view. I won't get into that subject here except to say it is about a content dispute about and neutral pov, and some people canvassed people to attack in sort of a creative but malicious way. This editor goes where ever I am to accost. Not sure why. skip sievert (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Merge~~ see below -- WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and arguably WP:SPS from admission linked here [8], etc, delete, unless a proper justification can be given beyond a generic WP:N in which case merge. As the editor inserted him/herself into this discussion by free will, I'd say that WP:RRULE with association to editor would allow the edit archive links given be used for an evaluation of the overall topic. An explanation of edits done to hide discussion of own NPOV issues in articles and break AfD discussion standards is needed or the COI is blatant. If an article is truly written to just, proper standards and the editor has nothing to hide from then it should speak for itself and the editor would never need to speak on its behalf in defense, which is why I can't say it should be kept. Even a merged article would probably need a rewrite to avoid any later need for debate on similar grounds as this. Datheisen (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If an article is truly written to just, proper standards and the editor has nothing to hide from then it should speak for itself and the editor would never need to speak on its behalf in defense, which is why I can't say it should be kept. end quote. Huh? This is an Afd, and that is what happens at these events. I think your comment above is a little over the top Datheisen. Written to just and proper standards? It is. I am NOT in a conflict of interest, nor have been. I hope that is clear. Your not debating the article here, you are debating me, as to your opinion of me, and using a very negative tone. The article is interesting and important. Its not about me. skip sievert (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I appreciate information from both sites. Merge per DGG's suggestion. After looking a little deeper into things I can see there are far bigger issues to hammer out, but in the instance of this article I can't see why putting the bits of unique information into the parent article and that seems like a reasonable compromise between deletion and endless edit wars. Though I don't want to be bullied away from discussion by a WP:BITE pouncing, this seems like quite a simple something to resolve versus what involved editors here already have on their plates. Datheisen (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Endless edit wars? Nonsense. Things have been calm until this AfD without discussing any of the issues in talk. The issue of Notability had been addressed in the talk page there was no follow-on discussion for for **7 months**. As far as I can see, the article is Notable. There was never any discussion in talk about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and arguably WP:SPS in the talk page either. And now we see out of nowhere an AfD request. Nonsense. Why are the alleged COI, NPOV and SPS issues not being discussed? There is no need to merge a small amount, redirect and protect as suggested by DGG. The intent is to burn and bury this content from Wikipedia permanently. I disagree. "there can always be justice if all are given a fair playing field with which to form consensus under listed guidelines." - Datheisen Think about it. kgrr ^talk 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarification to Kgrr -- I'd be referring to the many-months-long edit war frequented by the author of this article at Sustainability. It has been shot up to ANI and has substantial admin support for a user block on the topic. AGF is hard to go with when an editor will go to such lengths. Skipsievert is also involved in Mediation elsewhere, and has even pulled out of a mediation for a group related to this topic. I just can't go with AGF any further with an established history of disruption of an editor blocking any and all changes to his/her content. Since the editor suggesting this AfD is also involved within the project, I'm trying to split the difference and consider the possible COI of both and think a merge would be most appropriate without adding even more problems or tearing up another larger project. I asked for clarification from both, they both replied, my suggestion is merge. Datheisen (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Datheisen -- I disagree completely. The majority of what's here is an obvious outpour of hate. You still have not convinced me of any of the merits of this AfD *attack*. kgrr ^talk 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't like the judgments above by Datheisen. I have not engaged in an edit war as you described above and there is and has been a content dispute, but that is NOT connected here, and stirring things, misinterpreting things as to the Ani, and a Mediation is pointless here. I have not blocked any or all changes to content. Please desist... now. Tearing up another larger project? I have no idea what you are talking about there. Your opinion of an Ani that you think has support one way or another? Could you stop crossing over from thing to thing? I think this is a good article and as has been said it is notable. skip sievert (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clarification-- Actually this[9] added comment to this page below explains what I'm saying perfectly and that it is entirely reasonable to consider the motivations of the edits of someone currently in incident profiles. Actually, in above comments you accuse other editors of being engaged in disruptive behavior, so I cannot see why you should be allowed to make those statements yet remain immune from criticism. As such, I see no reason to listen to baseless threats fro you. Even considering all that, do keep in mind that my suggestion is not to delete this page-- I took evidence from both sides and evaluated-- so it cannot be said I'm being unfair to you. As a third-party observer, it's a sour feeling to attempt to be driven away. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Response to Datheisen You took evidence from both sides? BS. What I am observing here is behavior where several non-contributing authors or self-appointed Wikipedia policemen are looking to remove an article rather than working with it based on its own merits. So far, all I see is an AdHominem attack focused on Skipsievert. Your whole focus has been to burn and bury this article. What you have not done is to address the complaint on its own merit. Let's lay it out. I don't want to hear anything about anybody's personal issues at ANI or whatever. Discuss only the complaints about the article and nothing else. Two issues were brought up in this AfD complaint 1) Conflict of Interest and 2) Notability. I repeat none of the alleged COI or notability issues have been addressed. 1) You all seem to have a problem with Skip's alleged conflict of interest. I'm an engineer and a member of IEEE. Does that prohibit me from editing an engineering related article? No. About IEEE? No. I am not the IEEE. The article is not about Skip although he is a believer in Technocracy or simply 'Technate'. Skip is not the subject of the article, a free book is that Skip did not write. I really don't see a COI issue. Since it's not being discussed, obviously you don't really have a problem with the issue. 2) The talk page in the article has a lengthy discussion about the notability issue. I believe since you are not willing to address it or discuss it any further for *seven months*, obviously you are all satisfied with the Notability aspect. You still have not convinced me of the merits of this AfD complaint. Keep kgrr ^talk 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and salt per DGG; the topics are so closely related and this is just not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and salt Agree with above. No need for a repeat of the same information. Any unrepeated information can be merged back to main Technocracy page. LK (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD is being discussed at ANI, in relation to a thread about SS as a disruptive editor, see [10], [11] -- Johnfos (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. What does what you are posting above have to do with the A.f.d. here? I think bringing arguments here that are unrelated and hectoring as in wiki-hounding is not called for. Noted before that you Johnfos have gone from article to article making commentary like the above here. This is an Afd. about a book created/written by M. King Hubbert one of the most notable scientists of the 20th. century. How on earth is the Technocracy Study Course even a subject for an article of deletion on Wikipedia? This seems almost comical now with the comments being drawn together by editors and the lack of actual discussion of the subject here. The only person so far to accurately comment on the value of this book is kgrr. Could we stop the cross referencing to unrelated things now? - skip sievert (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, primarily given that the arguments in favour of retaining the article were clutching at straws. No convincing assertion of notability or other decisive policy-based reason for keeping the article has been made. Skomorokh, barbarian 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Apelbaum

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

Delete. This article seems to be of a borderline notability. To me it seems that if we include this article there is no reason to include a large portion of the worlds workforce. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject extensively cites notability, nomination is a strawman argument UltraMagnus^speak 12:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability well established via numerous corroborating secondary external sources as cited. Article has previously been reviewed and deemed within the scope of both WikiProject Computer Security and WikiProject Biography. Subject is also a published author (Google Books, Amazon, etc.). --JAF 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs)
Delete. Books are all self-published; patents are all to nn freepatentsonline.com pages; previous contentious Afd discussions[12] about pretty much the exact same content was derailed when the page was blanked by author, then recreated by one of a number of editors and IPs that relentlessly promote this person and his nn contributions.

Here are some of the editors. Please be sure to review user and talk history as most have been blanked:

JillFine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
CarlGuass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
DavidStock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Apelbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
PiRSqr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flanneljammies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Petri_Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
LittleFatPinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
96.232.167.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
209.45.135.131 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
166.217.232.175 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.222.125.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
71.167.17.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Flowanda | Talk 04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I have absolutely no COI or interest past, present or future related to this subject just in case anyone wants to go there again. Flowanda | Talk 06:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please do not remove large portions of a page that is under AFD, especially after you have voted to delete it --UltraMagnus^speak 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for rolling those edits back. Flowanda | Talk 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments

Article background recap - I originally blanked the article after an AfD debate (resulting in no consensus) in an effort to bring it to a more mature level. As it stands, it has passed muster as a stub article within the scope of both the WikiProject Computer Security and Biography groups.
Publisher validity - Books are not self published (see Google Books for publisherinfo) and have been cited in both secondary and tertiary sources. Also see availability on Amazon.
Patents notability - (1) The patents are notable covering contemporary internet and security technologies [13].
Publication notability - Some notable published articles in both juried and research venues: (2) Marine Bilge Keels, (3) Behind the Scenes of Virtual Jihad: The Anatomy of a Jihadist Forum , (4) Behind the Scenes of Virtual Jihad Part II
Not an orphan article - Contrary to the tag posted, article is not an orphan and is currently linked. It previously contained additional links to projects such as the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Ogilvie Transportation, AREMA, and others but these were recently removed by another editor.
Media coverage (re: notability) - Article contains numerous links to media coverage with both direct interviews with and discussions about subject and his work.
Subject's key contributions to notable projects - The Construction Manager, AREMA’s Digital Proceedings On-Line and AREMA's Electronic Document Library, SocialSense platform, Project Engineer of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge demolition project, QA\QC Manager of the Ogilvie Transportation project

--JAF 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFine (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 October 2009

Comment on the article edits I made:

None of the sources indicate Apelbaum is well known or a significant contributor[14][15] or even mentioned at all[16][17].
The Microsoft vulnerability source was an unanswered post on a Microsoft-related newsgroup forum.[18]
Books sourced to a commerce site[19], even if it's Amazon, does nothing to prove notability or proof of third-party publishing. And the ISBNs (which can be purchased by anyone) listed don't even exist.[20] ASINs are Amazon product numbers.
Multiple links to a personal blog or Google Books or Docs are not an indication of notability.[21]
Freepatentsonline.com is a questionable primary source and should only be used to supplement third-party, independent news reporting on the patents and not be used as a measure of notability.[22]
And most of the internally linked articles were also edited or created by the above editors, including Networked Insights and SocialSense.[23]

Flowanda | Talk 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All seven of his patents are listed on the official website of the United States patent site [site.http://www.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=Jacob+Apelbaum&config=htdig-www] Freepatentsonline shows every single patent ever made, freely letting you search for them and read information. Links to the official government site in the article might be a better choice. Can we prove any of these patents are notable? Dream Focus 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since First Data is a major company, and paid to use his patents, they must be fairly important. I say that makes him notable enough. Dream Focus 05:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no verification of such a fact other than Apelbaum's press releases, and the info alone doesn't show any proof of notability unless there is significant news or trade coverage of the sale or a related aspect. Just selling to or suing a "major company" does not make a person notable. Flowanda | Talk 19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable sources discuss the subject of this biography in any depth, certainly not the depth to be considered notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having sourced assertions of notability and significant coverage in reliable sources may be seen by guideline to meet WP:BIO through WP:GNG. As an author and inventor he seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. I have never heard of the subject before today. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete. My reasoning:
- Books: he's had four books published, all through Fuji Technology Press. Whether it's because they were English language books put out by a Japanese publisher, or because FTP no longer publishes books (they're now journals only), I don't know, but all of them are out of print, and his name can't be found on their Web site (alternate search method, same result). According to WorldCat, no libraries hold any of his books, so they don't contribute to notability.
- No Google news hits from secondary reliable sources. None. That is, zero. How do we write an article with no sources?
- Virtually no Google Web hits at all, once we remove Wikipedia mirrors, Facebook, LiveJournal, LinkedIn, and such.
- According to Google Scholar, no one has found his books or patents worth citing.
- So far as I can tell, he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (neither the books nor the patents count), WP:CREATIVE (never cited by peers), or WP:GNG (no articles about him).

To those saying keep, could you please explain precisely what criteria you believe this article meets, and why?

And if any of you truly believe that writing tech books is in itself sufficient for notability, I'd be happy to give you plenty of names of authors who've each written dozens of books, sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and whose books are held by thousands of libraries (so long as you don't include me, please!

). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- His patents alone support the WP:CREATIVE criteria as having originated significant new techniques. Wide citation by peers is only one of the suggested (not mandatory) criteria for inclusion. Patents are notable. Credible reference to four of the patents being used by First Data on their platforms 1.
- Google and news search indicates he recently released a social networking platform 2.
- Books are not self published and ISBNs are legit. I found The User Authentication Principals on Amazon 3.
- He is involved in scholarly research and is known for his involvement, so WP:ACADEMIC is indeed applicable. Google books shows he published an article in the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (U.S.) 1992 4 and two academic (i.e. non-commercial) security related publications 5, 6 referenced by The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies 7.
- Articles citing his leadership roles on a number of notable Civil Engineering projects. 8, 9,10.
- Presentations in well known software development industry events11.
- He has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable third-party publications. There are a number of printed press articles about him, including at least one dedicated interview 12, 13.

The overall evidence indicates notability and non-trivial contributions to academic publications, creation of useful IP, and practical disciplines including civil engineering, software development, and security.--CG 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlGuass (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 October 2009 — CarlGuass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comments on the above:

WP:CREATIVE says nothing at all about patents, so they don't help towards meeting its criteria.
Google and news search indicates that the company he works for put out a press release that included his name—which doesn't apply towards notability.
I found The User Authentication Principals on Amazon where it shows that they don't sell a printed hardcopy version, only an eBook version. And there's no sales rank shown on that page, which implies that Amazon has never sold a copy (and at $158 per Kindle copy, I can't say I'm surprised).
WP:ACADEMIC is indeed applicable except that there is no record, anywhere, of any academics having cited him or his works—which is what WP:ACADEMIC is primarily about.
Articles citing his leadership roles don't. The PDF is a newsletter published by a county Dept. of Public Works. It contains a short "guest commentary" reminiscing about a demolished bridge, which mentions numerous people, one of whom is Apelbaum. The two other links are to Google Docs, neither of which has clear sourcing, and both of which only mention Apelbaum in passing.
Presentations in well known software development industry events - that link is to the SxSWi panel picker. It doesn't mean he's ever spoken at SxSW, or that he ever will. What it shows is that he proposed giving a talk at SxSW Interactive 2010. I believe about 10% of the proposals actually end up accepted and presented. (Note: for those seeking a COI, I have no problem stating that I spoke at SxSWi in 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, & 2009. Interactive is a fun conference ("Spring Break for Web Geeks!"), but it's most definitely not a "software development industry event," well known or otherwise.)
the subject of multiple independent and reliable third-party publications - links are to two Google docs, which, again, are not sourced. Neither is about Apelbaum; the one described as a "dedicated interview" is instead Apelbaum discussing a project. If it was properly sourced it might be useful towards an article on that project, but it tells us nothing about Apelbaum himself.

Overall, there's still no solid basis to show he meets any of the notability criteria. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Flowanda | Talk 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Flowanda | Talk 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Flowanda | Talk 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Flowanda | Talk 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated notability. His supposed books don't show up in Worldcat, I tried Google news for the subjects he's supposedly notable for and found only a lawsuit and a press release, and it's been established in past AfDs that merely having patents isn't good enough. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but there's no sign of academic notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add to David's points that he's certainly not a notable civil engineer either. Article implies he's been head or GM of the listed projects, but in checking the sources, he's basically only offered a few spokesman's talking points in brief trade pub and local newspaper articles and is listed as "project engineer". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think there are significant civil engineering contributions for the following reasons:

The article in Engineering News-Record identifies him as the Project Manager [24] certainly, a significant decision maker in one of the largest and most complex bridge demolitions in the world [25].
On the Chicago Northwestern Station rehab (138 million project!) he is identified as a Manager [26].
He is identified as the inventor and developer [27] of a commercial civil engineering software package The Construction Manager--JAF 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The SPANS article lists him specifically as "Project Engineer", but it may be moot to quibble over terminology because there are thousands of large-scale demolition and construction projects every year (the latter usually more newsworthy) and these by themselves do not make a project manager notable. Significant accolades are sometimes showered on the designers and architects, but not typically managers. The question is whether he developed or implemented any new methods that had a substantial impact in civil engineering and it seems the answer is no. (I'm thinking here of folks like Hardy Cross or Joseph Colaco as a comparison.) I also doubt that a single trade software package qualifies him – there are hundreds of such packages in use and there's no evidence that his has impacted the field. With all due respect, of the tens of thousands of active civils and construction managers, the only visible distinction I see for him is this puffy article that tries to assemble several disparate pieces into a passable case of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

delete per David Eppstein, Agricola44. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited are not much about Apelbaum. They rather describe him as an engineer which the press talked to during various projects. (I wanted to close this, but had trouble reading whether or not there was a consensus here, so I reviewed the article to decide what I think ought to be done. I hope my input makes this easier for another closer, but it should not be given any extra weight.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Grover (playwright)

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this playwright. The book source offered is searchable via Google Books but doesn't seem to mention the subject.[28] Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked as well and didn't find anything that suggested third party notability. The one play mentioned shows up in various indicies, but I couldn't find a single review.Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majed Hadid

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

Fails WP:BIO. Hadid has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The leftorium 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per stated reason. Is the name a misspelling though? Google suggested it. Nezzadar (speak) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 88

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

Tagged for notability since April '08. One source, which is a highly trivial mention in PC Gamer UK, a tiny sidebar in the downloadable content section.[29] This is the only reliable source and isn't even significant coverage. Last AFD mentioned a press page on the game's website which has a number of unreliable trivial mentions, none of which are suitable.[30] In the end there is no way this topic is significant enough to find enough WP:RS to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Andre (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Andre (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Andre (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - Just looking at the "review and previews". The Linux Game Tome content is submitted by the game's developer, with user-generated comments, so is unusable. Warcry.com content is limited to previews, nothing substantial. GameHippo looks about as unreliable as they come. However, the Home of the Underdogs review is staff written [31]; this is a site I don't mind citing as a source. Combined with the brief PC Gamer coverage, this might just pass WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the Underdogs. This isn't a reviewed or reliable site, it's basically a fansite that got big. Either way though, the game is just one of the many files up for download on the site, not really a review or significant coverage. The PC Gamer is trivial to the extreme. Andre (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HoTU is significant enough to have received positive attention from other major publications, Wired for example. What is it that you look for in a reliable source? Marasmusine (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability for sources is not directly related to that source's notability or significance. It has to do with being reviewed, fact-checked, and perceived as reputable. Underdogs is first and foremost an abandonware repository and the text on the site is not known to be reliable as a source. Andre (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hey, that's why it's a weak keep :> Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 reliable and 1 unreliable/borderline source is not a keep. Andre (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large amount of gnews hits, and coverage in publications such as pc gamer prove notability UltraMagnus^speak 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one page on current Google News that says "A couple years ago, Jonathan Mak made a game called Everyday Shooter for PS3 and PC. Prior to that, he worked on a lesser known, multiplayer, action-rts game called Gate 88."[32] Definitely a trivial mention. Searching the whole archive I can find one or two more mentions of Mr. Mak that mention Gate 88 in passing. Number of reliable sources is the metric, not number of hits. Andre (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Redirect to List of freeware games: Whilst I'm currently still accepting HoTU as a source, it's still only one item of significant coverage - and I usually go with Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3. I've opened up a discussion about HoTU at WP:VG/RS, so depending on what happens there I may review my opinion in the future. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Fields

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

A quick glance at the Google Books and Google News archive results gives an impression of notability, but on looking through them it is apparent that the ones that mention this Alvin Fields only have name checks, rather than any significant coverage, and I can't see any evidence that this songwriter/singer/actor passes any of the requirements of WP:MUSIC or WP:CREATIVE - he seems to have worked with plenty of notable people but not quite to have achieved notability himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom. Found one gnews hit that mentions him in passing. There are a couple of other reviews from the same show but their is a fee to read the articles (the blurb for the Providence Journal reviews says: "The lead singers were hardly credible rockers - Alvin Fields sounded like he was in a hotel lounge" which doesn't help the case). His only mention on Allmusic is for his album Special Delivery and it only has a tracklist and credits. The credits do list Whitney and Cissy Houston but only as background singers, Herb Alpert is not listed in the credits but the article links him to the album. Apparently he has had his songs appear in a few movies but can't find any more information. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amennefernebes

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

This page is a hoax. Ramesses II did not have an elder brother; the theory that he had one was based on a misinterpreted relief of Seti I, on which Ramesses had his own name inscribed over another man's. This man was thought to be the original heir of Seti, but since then it was proven that he was an army commander called Mehy.[33] The theory that Ramesses became pharaoh only after the death of his brother springs up often on various websites (mainly due to Christian Jacq's Ramesses novels, I guess), and various names have been attached to him, though I've never seen this "Amennefernebes", which, on top of all this, is distinctly female.

Aidan Dodson's The Complete Royal Famililes of Ancient Egypt, probably the most comprehensive and up-to-date book on the subject only lists two sisters for Ramesses (Tia and Henutmire), and no brothers. – Alensha ^talk 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm and Delete This shows the importance of expert monitoring. In trying to research this, the 'internet echo chamber' effect is very strong, in that wikipedia's article seems to have been the probable source for several additional mentions. I have no personal expertise in this area or access to quality non-internet research materials, so it would be good for an editor to double-check that there is no actual scholarly controversy about the existence of this individual. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (Relentless album)

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

Album not yet released, and no evidence of pre-release hype, just an announcement by the band itself. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the album is released, or upon evidence of pre-release third-party hype. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Release date is three months away and a lot could change. Unreferenced. --Cedders^tk 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:incubate until released or pre-release coverage asserts notability UltraMagnus^speak 12:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bryant

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

Blatant autobio with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Podcaster not notable in own right, unless there's a figure or comparison and source for "popular" --Cedders^tk 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fein

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

Non-notable. Had a pedestrian college career, and never played in the NFL regular season. It's sad that he passed, and nice that he was an Iraq War veteran, but all this doesn't make him notable. Wizardman 15:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His college career was hardly "pedestrian". He was the lone Ole Miss player responsible for Ole Miss' defeat of national champion Florida last year. Named Preseason All-SEC. Received the Pat Tillman Patriot Award by the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Junior college: Earned first team All-America honors from JC Grid-Wire and from the National Junior College Athletic Association, junior college's equivalent to the NCAA. Rated the No. 28 JUCO prospect in the nation by Rivals.com. Named first team All-Western States Football League and Defensive Player of the Year by the league's coaches. Was named NJCAA Co-Defensive Player of the Week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.75.195 (talk • contribs)
Delete Sorry, but this is an unconvincing argument. Not many had heard of Fein prior to his legal troubles with the Ravens, and he wasn't even with an NFL team when he died. His accomplishments in junior college aren't really notable, either. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never played a season game at the top level, fails criteria at WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad that he died but his death doesn't make him notable considering he was non-notable in life. Fails WP:ATH as he has never played a game at the highest professional level.--Giants 27(c|s) 03:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else that says delete said.--Yankees10 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arni Jagir

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

Not sure if notable, I can't find anything to establish notability - but I'm no expert on this period, author is also the author of the only source article. Looks essay-like RT | Talk 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Goon Show. Closing as "merge" per the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Missing Number 10 Downing Street

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

I am not sure about this specific episodes notability. I really need a second opinion, because it doesn't look notable, but I get quite a few hits on it. Thanks. Lourie Pieterse 13:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Goon Show. See also the long Wikipedia article "2006 Missing numerals from Downing Street incident", about the confusion in which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other officials were wandering into the wrong places. Spoiler alert, the numerals had been taken down for cleaning and were replaced after two chaotic days. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Jabbar al-Kubaysi

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

I tagged this article for neutrality about three weeks ago, and with no progress I came back to rewrite some of the more loaded words in it. (I'm really not happy with describing someone as a senior spokesperson of "the Iraqi resistance" implying it's a single entity when most people agree that the insurgency in Iraq was lots of different militant groups pursuing a whole variety of aims. Neither do I like the only reference being a blog with a blatant agenda to cheer on the insurgents.) I've now gone back to this, but having had a look in GNews, there only seems to be a trickle of coverage around the time of the arrest, which is a bit WP:NOTNEWS. If anyone who knows Iraqi politics better can explain why he is notable, I will withdraw this nomination and go back to a cleanup, but otherwise I don't see much purpose in keeping this article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmochemical Periodic Table of the Elements in the Solar System

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

This featured in a few news articles in October 2003, but I see no evidence that it has had any significant impact in the world of science since then. Accordingly, I think giving this concept a Wikipedia article is out of all proportion to its importance. BTW the data in the article is already at Abundance of the chemical elements, so there's no reason to keep the article for the data. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The table of data in that article would save much work - we often need those data for elements articles and it is much handier than the graph. I would wait for other replies to propose a solution (merge, wikilink, etc.) but anyway, would a closing admin please let me know before deleting this article. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - sorry, I was wrong about all the data being in Abundance of the chemical elements. In fact the chart is there, but the table is not. BTW the table is simply copied from http://solarsystem.wustl.edu/our%20reprints/2003/cosmochem-table.pdf. Anyway, are you saying that you think the article is important enough to keep? I've been waiting for opinions on this one... Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  We keep such tables in Chemical elements data references - their numbers are used in the individual elements articles. This one can be placed there, though I would rename it to something like Abundances of the elements in the Solar System. All those tables are copies from web or book sources (sometimes updated or combined), but mere wikifying pdf tables is already time consuming. Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and rename to Abundances of elements in the Solar System. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No need to create Abundances of elements in the Solar System - the data is already in Abundances of the elements (data page)#Sun and solar system. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right you are - my bad. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I missed that. Then delete this redundant article! The data are slightly different, but as we already have 2 sources (with uncertainties, etc), there is no need to have a separate third! Materialscientist (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - we've established that the data is elsewhere on WP, but what about the concept itself, i.e. the idea of a "Cosmochemical Periodic Table")? I'd like to see keep/delete comments on that before a decision is made. (My opinion is that it doesn't seem to be important enough for a WP article, but I'm not an expert in the field so I'd appreciate other opinions). Peter Ballard (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me "Cosmochemical Periodic Table .." is just awkward slang - table remains the same, only abundances change between the Earth and Solar System. There is no "new idea" in this sense. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this isnt even a periodic table. it would have to arrange elements by their periodicity, not just atomic number. and i agree its a poorly phrased term even though someone did create a periodic table with this info in it. However, i do like the visual portrayal of this info, and would like to see it in the already existing article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the picture was long ago in Abundance of the chemical elements and Chemical element, and I think a colored version of it is also around in elements articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, terminology is only used once in the scientific literature. Abductive (reasoning) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy, and the only source even mentioning this alleged super-mass murderer is a self-published book, which fails WP:RS big time. Sandstein 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christman Gniperdoliga

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

No evidence, no reliable source. There seems to be no historial evidence. The only reference given is the fictional Christman Gniperdoliga - Der tausendfache Raubmörder by Kirchschlager (which is a self-published source and therefore hardly reliable), which has no historical references. Other sources only cite this Kirchschlager. So the historical reality of Gniperdoliga is not evident. To me, it all seems a scary lie –- a hoax with no reliable sources. Therefore this articel should be deleted. --mmg (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Well I would say that as the articles (re) creator).

The source of Christman Gniperdoliga - Der tausendfache Raubmörder is the book Historische Serienmörder (same author), which according to the publisher here, "Es versteht sich als Sachbuch, nicht als Fachbuch. It sees itself as a non-fiction, not as a textbook." google books lists the book as both fiction and true crime.

As well as Christman, the book deals with more well known serial killers including Elizabeth Báthory, Luis Garavito, Gilles de Rais and the Burke and Hare murders. The book also claims to deal with lesser known serial killers that were found through researching criminal histories. The account of Christman is based upon a tale told in a region of what is now Germany. The book seems to have been written in good faith, and the section on Christman based upon the tale. The question is whether that tale is true.

Note I do not speak German, and have used google translate to read the German, I have not read the book. Martin451 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- assuming this article is verifiable, the subject is certainly notable as a serial murderer on a massive scale. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, the question is not whether the tale is true or not, but rather is it verifiably notable. I would think notable folklore would be mentioned in more than just one or two self-published books. Location (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be verified and determined notable through multiple, independent reliable sources. Lara 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useify If the article is deleted, could it be userfied? Martin451 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LISA MVC

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

Unable to find a single reliable source covering the subject. Subject thus fails WP:N. Odie5533 (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more non consumer software with a feature list on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orinoco Framework

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

Unable to find a single reliable source covering the subject. Thus fails WP:N. Odie5533 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elixon WCMS/XUL

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Elixon WCMS/XUL

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

Unable to find a single reliable source covering the subject, thus fails WP:N. Odie5533 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not even suggested. It is neither first web based CMS nor the first with WYSIWYG editor. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. IMHO could have been speedied. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclon (game)

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

Non-notable video game with no references that hasn't even been developed past its first demo. Prod was removed by the author with no reason given. Without any sources or assertion of notability it looks like an open-shut delete to me. TheLetterM (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Non-notable, unreleased game. Edward321 (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply isn't notable or verifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shair Siddiqui

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

Allegedly a great modern poet. But no evidence is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
Comment. This needs the attention of someone who can read Urdu, which I think is the language the subject writes in. I can't find references using Google News. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is a notable person, but we have to find all the references form some printed newspaper or books. Finding it on net i=will be extremely difficult.--yousaf465 02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're an encyclopedia. We write from published sources. If that isn't possible now, delete and recreate when it is. Lara 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Survivor: Fiji#Kenward "Boo" Bernis. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenward "Boo" Bernis

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kenward "Boo" Bernis

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

Reason - not notable Poor Poor Pitiful Me (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: Fiji#Kenward "Boo" Bernis as the best alternative to deletion. The subject of this article has not received enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. Thus, this should be redirected to his entry in Survivor: Fiji, a TV show where he was a contestant. His entry at Survivor: Fiji provides enough biographical details to warrant a redirect. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard. —tdltrombonator 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Framework

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find many Fortran's coverage in the industry as of today, are you proposing to remove the history? :) Maverick was used a lot in the past (as Struts) but not now. Knocte —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Sources: [34] --Odie5533 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Odie5533 is correct, there is quite a bit of coverage of this framework. Adding proper references would be far better solution than deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demico Rogers

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

Subject is non-notable. Has no fights as a professional MMA fighter. His biggest accomplishment is appearing on The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights TV show and lost in the first round of the tournament. TreyGeek (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with everything said by Trey. Justastud15 (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dont Delete on Grounds of lack of fights. He won his match at AXFC 19 in 2007. So the TUF fight was at least his 2nd fight Check out Sherdog Fightfinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.152.190 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog has just recently put that fight up on his fightfinder. UFC.com has him listed as 0-0 so that must have been one of this 4 am fights because he has yet to make his pro debut. His last am fight was for Strikeforce and that was after the AXFC 19 fight. Justastud15 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails ATHLETE. Hasn't competed at a professional level. Lara 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Hill

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

Local news personality with no evidence from reliable sources of notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE which covers journalists.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I originally speedied when the article contained This text. As the article is now, it is much more notable, but not notible enough, delete per nom and TParis00ap RT | Talk 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the article indicates, with references, Hill is one of the most recognized and notable New Orleanians today. GreenGourd (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:RS would those be? The links provided are cursory mentions that have no impact on establishing notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown V: She's the Witch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Halloweentown V: She's the Witch

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

This is pure speculation. No sources are cited. Logan | Talk 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above, and salt too, to prevent recreation. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About a half-dozen hits on Google, but all are speculative. Premature and evidently no sourcing available.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. This so called sequel has been rumored since 2006, and yet not a single piece of real evidence has ever surfaced, it is all speculation. Also, considering that this has been rumored for years and this is to my knowledge only the second time this has been created (the first being in 2006/2007), I don't see any need to prevent recreation at this point. ---Shadow (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation by Pigman (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Buck

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion but I saw the words "Award winning". Curiously, with so much detail it doesn't mention what award was won. So I'm bringing it here. Seems like a typical CV/resume to me with no particular notability but others should make that call. I'd say delete. Pigman☿/talk 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: DGG is right, it's a copyvio. I'm going to delete it as such. I shouldn't be the one to close the AfD though, should I? Or is that an acceptable action in this kind of situation? Pigman☿/talk 01:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag, since we're going to discuss it. I'll look further in a bit. Did you check for copyvio? DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as Copyvio And so it is, from [35] aand [36]. When it looks like a CV, it very often has been a CV. Tagged it G12 accordingly, if someone would like to check. It is not the sort of probably or clearly notable subject where it would make sense to try to rewrite from scratch. In his fuller CVs on line, I see no actual awards listed , and he has not been a professor but a volunteer unpaid instructor. Was indeed not a G7, but not notable -- even apart from the copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article was substantially improved beginning on 22 October 2009 ; earlier "delete" opinions may no longer be current. Sandstein 20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiescat in pace

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

Move to wiktionary Quest for Truth (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to {{Dicdef}} --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep, the RIP as an initialism for requiescat in pace/rest in peace is a very notable phrase, and so I would like to think that an encyclopaedic article could be written about it. This currently isn't that article, but it could be used as a starting point. Wiktionary already has entries for requiescat in pace, requiescant in pace, rest in peace and RIP so a transwiki would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonably notable legal Latin phrase. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Another argument - it is one several other language Wikipedias. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I like the older version [37] which explains why you'd want to rest in peace, instead of expecting to be sent over, judged immediately, and sent to heaven or hell, thus no resting at all. But the article's subject is clearly notable, no matter what. Several other articles link to this one. Dream Focus 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Wikipedia. There should not be an article for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this foreign phrase should be an exception. --Fartherred (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to indicate that contributors intended abuse, and am sorry if I left open that interpretation. --Fartherred (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there should not be articles for every word and phrase, but there are some words and phrases about which significant encyclopaedic information can be written so as to be inappropriate solely for a dictionary entry (in just the same way that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia). Examples of words and phrases with encyclopaedia articles are thus, go (verb), anno domini and The King is dead. Long live the King.. I'm not making a WP:WAX argument here, but showing examples of how encyclopaedic articles can be written about words/phrases and the concepts they embody, and I believe that Requiescat in pace/Rest in peace (which redirects to the former) is another example of such an article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one uses the Wiktionary, never has and never will. Its crap, and should be gotten rid of. Use Websters instead. Or merge it with the regular Wikipedia, since then it'd show up in searches, and people might actually notice it. No reason why any words should be separated from regular articles. Dream Focus 10:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you know, that this is an encyclopedia and our articles should largely be about concepts, not words. Powers ^T 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Powers ^T 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can any of the participants above give some examples of sources that describe how the term itself is notable, rather than just using it? Searching google is quite difficult, as the vast majority of hits are just definitions or trivial usages, and not articles about the term itself.
@Bearian: Inclusion on a foreign-language Wikipedia is not necessarily evidence of notability. Many other Wikipedias have a significantly lower bar than en-wiki; for example, fr-wiki used to have fr:分, a totally non-notable 'article' on a random word, and I had to fight relatively hard to get it deleted. Likewise, the zh-wiki version of requiescat in pace has already been deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd love to say Keep, mainly because this phrase is one of those bits of knowledge that people come to Wikipedia to see. And I have to believe that there is some sort of Reliable Source that can describe the difference between RIP, Rest in Peace, and this. Stats.grok.se indicates that this article gets a few hundred hits per day, for what it's worth - many articles get far less. But, if sources exist, I can't find them, so i'll reserve judgement. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I experienced no difficulty in finding a source which discusses the origin of this phrase and its frequency as an epitaph in various times and places. The nomination fails our deletion policy as there has been no recent discussion at the article's talk page, which is as quiet as the grave, and reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger to Epitaph or List of Latin phrases: R do not seem to have been considered. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf wrote that the articles he refered to were examples of encyclopedic articles about words. I found the "Thus" article to be a soft redirect; the "Go" article an extremely extended dictionary style article about the meaning, history, derivation and use of the word; the only encyclopedic portion of the "Anno domini" article is the portion about the calendar; and the "The King is dead. Long live the King." article the only one that is a reasonably encyclopedic article about something culturally significant. As the "Anno domini" information could be much cut back and merged with the Gregorian calendar article; so the "Requiescat in pace" information could be merged with Headstone, the "Inscriptions" section.

Colonel Warden's complaint about the lack of discussion on the talk page for "Requiescat in pace" does not seem reasonable. If no one is using that talk page they do not miss the notice that the article is being considered for deletion by going to the talk page instead of the article page where the deletion and rescue notices are prominently displayed. What does Colonel Warden want on the talk page?

Our deletion policy provides a comprehensive list of actions to be taken before bringing a matter here. The general sense of such guidance is that deletion is a last resort which is only for hopeless cases and so good faith efforts should first be made to engage with the topic and its editors. This is consistent with our general policy on dispute resolution which urges that local discussions be tried first before escalating to another forum such as this. Failure to follow this guidance is disruptive because it tends to seem uncivil and overloads this process with cases which can be handled better locally. Drive by nominations have been considered vandalism by our veteran editors who have seen the vexatious nuisance that they may become. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of discussion would save an article that one believes to be unsalvageable. Why waste time waiting for a talk page discussion that may never come, especially on an article so rarely edited that it's likely on the watchlists of very few users? Powers ^T 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has existed for over 3 years and has been edited by several learned editors. Discussion ought to start within this community because those editors are already familiar with the topic and engaged by it. Making a presumption that nobody cares seems both inaccurate and improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to merge "Requiescat in pace" with "List of Latin phrases" might result in the whole being removed together as not an article about a dictionary but an article that is a little dictionary right in the middle of Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, that was impertinent.--Fartherred (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I sympathize with the concern noted by Colonel Warden that this AfD can be part of administrative overload. I doubt that any amount of money can fix this. There are too many different types of articles to easily make communities of the editors. Perhaps it is best to just keep these communities separate and reduce problems by keeping dictionary articles in a different web site. I am sorry that the discussion is in AfD, but the aggravation has already been paid. It is best to discuss the relevant points and resolve the issue. If there truly are several learned editors who worked on "Requiescat in pace" and they do not make better arguments then have been made so far for keeping the article, it seems that it should not be kept in article form. Failure to have discussed matters in the talk page does not excuse the proponents of keeping this article from citing reasons for keeping it beyond "I like it." I like telephone directories, but I will not copy one in the middle of Wikipedia in order to have numbers readily at hand.--Fartherred (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment For what it is worth, I looked at the stats.grok.se site. It indicated that the Colonization of the Moon article had been viewed "0 times in 200909." Checking the edit history of Colonization of the Moon revealed 16 edits in that month. I would say that the accuracy of the site is limited.--Fartherred (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. See the correct number. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the error that caused the incorrect output. I inadvertently included a trailing space on the end of the "Colonization_of_the_Moon_" article title which caused the computer to read it as a different title.--Fartherred (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Bearian suggests that "requiescat in pace" is a legal Latin phrase. Berian's comment should supported by a reference. I know of no legal use of that phrase. Perhaps it is used to mark the files of dead clients, but this would be an unofficial use. In any case, if it were significant in legal use, one would expect to find mention of it in the article "Requiescat in pace." The article does not mention any legal use.--Fartherred (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thryduulf refers to the situation whereby Wiktionary rejects articles that it considers excessively long. Thryduulf offers this as a reason for Wikipedia accepting such articles. On the contrary, Wikipedia should not base its acceptance of articles upon what is rejected by other web sites. Wikipedia does not strive to be a home for homeless articles. Wikipedia strives to be the best encyclopedia that it can be.--Fartherred (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is a mischaracterisation of my comment. As an experienced Wiktionorian I know that Wiktionary does accept long entries, but equally I know that it does not accept encyclopaedia articles and that there is not point transwiking duplicate dictionary definitions. My belief is that the article we currently have here is a useful starting point for an encyclopaedia article that belongs on Wikipeida, and that Wiktionary already has adequate (although expandable) dictionary definitions for all relevant terms. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Dream Focus belittles Wiktionary, supposedly intending that it is unreasonable to suggest that word articles be placed there. I have had no difficulty in finding Latin words and phrases that I looked for in Wiktionary.--Fartherred (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article has improved a lot since my proposed deletion, see the differences. As a matter of fact, the Chinese version zh:R.I.P. has been deleted and the content was moved to Wiktionary, because it contains definition only. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens to articles on other wikis is irrelevant to this discussion as all have different criteria, guidelines and policies. It is also entirely possible that the Chinese article was just a dictionary definition, but that implies nothing about the state of the English article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as pointy nom. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railfan

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

Pointless article which I imagine is read by no-one and is a waste of Wikipedia server space Dingdong12 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure this is a valid reason for delete but 200+ hits./day is more than some science articles. If it has sources, and even if obscure but encyclopedic it should stay.If this comes up on a goog search it will probably be useful to reader. I've never neard this term, but I have heard about trainspotting, but failing notability wasn't suggested as an issue. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: seems to be a WP:POINTy AFD, article is well-sourced to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close: Based on this editor's contributions, this seems to be quite pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AfD is not for cleanup. If you see a problem with the article, please go ahead and fix it. Be Bold!; the community will be happy to help you out in your editing. NW (Talk) 20:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

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

Very poorly worded, unencycolpedic by any standards and no attempt has been made to rectify issues. Recommendation made that article is started again Dingdong12 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keepp - AfD is not the place for article cleanup. The subject is in no way poorly sourced. You don't like the article? Fix it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, there is no way that the article is unencylopedic. So far, this appears to be a purely disruptive afd by somebodies' sock. The account has no contributions outside of this afd as of this post.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zivile Raudoniene

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

Doesn't meet notability guideline. Another one who hasn't done anything, therefore the article is a crappy stub with three refs. iMatthew ^talk at 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with precedent of almost all Arnold Classic bodybuilding contest winners being notable enough for articles. Even if her wrestling career is borderline, her bodybuilding career (see here and here, among some of the other 16,500 results on a google search) is enough to assert notability. Heck Flex magazine even ran stories about her workout routine and favorite places in her hometown ([38] and [39]), which is certainly not something they do for just anybody. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the reasons GaryColemanFan outlined above. While she's not notable yet as a wrestler, she is notable in her other profession (bodybuilding). LucyDoo (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Instantly notable with that bodybuilding win. If I may say so, this nomination is ridiculous. !! Justa Punk !! 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, ridiculous? Nominating an article in question is always OK. I suggest you strike that comment out. iMatthew ^talk at 10:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Stop trying to own AfD's if you wouldn't mind. I believe the nomination to be ridiculous and I have said why. !! Justa Punk !! 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understand first of all that nothing I've said indicates I'm trying to own a discussion. You seem to be at a loss for words, and are putting unrelated policies into your sentences when they clearly don't belong. Your opinion on the nomination is irrelevant. Please only comment on the article in question, not the quality of the nomination. iMatthew ^talk at 02:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understand that you are trying to dictate terms to me, which is a clear showing of ownership. I suggest you also review in the detail WP:CIVIL. These are both relevant to your conduct to which I am referring. It has been proven beyond doubt that this person is notable, and I stand by my comment that this nomination is ridiculous. Unless you can prove that the Arnold Classic is not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You still don't get it? Seriously? Comment on the ARTICLE, not the NOMINATION/NOMINANTOR. Thank you, iMatthew ^talk at 10:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no such restriction under WP rules. Whatever is relevant to the deletion discussion is permitted. A view on the nomination is included in this. That is all I will say to you. !! Justa Punk !! 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per GaryColemanFan's sourcing which establishes her notability through her bodybuilding career regardless of her wrestling accomplishments or lack thereof. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity McCray

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

Doesn't meet our notability guidelines. One/third of the references is her MySpace page. iMatthew ^talk at 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. She is not yet notable enough for her own page. LucyDoo (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Palmer

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

Another "wrestler" who hasn't done anything notable in her career. Article has little information, but it probably covers everything she's done in her career; which is not a lot at all. Only two references as well. iMatthew ^talk at 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between her work on Gladiators and her wrestling career, notability is established. Featured in Daily Mail story ([40]), and discussed in some detail in various reliable news sources (see here). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree she is not yet notable as wrestler, but she has a prior TV career on UK Gladiators. LucyDoo (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs work, but if she was on Gladiators that's a notability pass. Let's see some verifiable and reliable sourcing of this, then I'll make a choice. !! Justa Punk !! 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, per WP:ENT, a subject is notable if she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Gladiators counts as one, so that alone does not make her a notable pass as indicated above by Lucy and Justa Punk. I believe what GaryColemanFan indicated was that her role on Gladiators combined with the third party sources combined with her wrestling career made her notable. I just wanted to point that out, as that doesn't mean every person on Gladiators should get an article (as less than 1/2 of the people from all the franchise do at the moment). Nikki♥311 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with work within the indy scene, international modelling, gladiators and history associated with wwe including being signed to fcw i think she is notable, an action figure of herself, tv show in uk, australia and usa and magazine covers makes her notable as not just an athelete, model, wrestler but entertainment personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.220.30 (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pollara

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

This filmmaker is still in school, I'm not convinced by the sources that he reaches the bar of notability, and Google News didn't come up with anything any better when I searched his name. The long list of projects he supposedly worked on is mostly a mishmash of redlinks and things he didn't actually have a hand in. Appears to be some puffery going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creation of a WP: SPA, not sourced, no reliable sources available. No bias against re-creating in future should source/notablity issues be addressed. --Whoosit (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The filmmaker is still in school but his work is without a doubt notable. I am still building this article and would appreciate the time to do so properly but Pollara has a running business made up of students that has been producing professional material. Cybertek Integrated Media a sister company is producing and distributing a feature film "Blood Ghost" in 2009. Currently in pre-production I have not found substantial data on the production. Pollara also has various products that he crafts and sells privately and have been used on various low budget productions like "Table for Three" which is listed on IMDB. I think for a twenty year old cinematographer/producer this is worthy of Wikipedia.

In addition after a google search Pollara's name and credits appear page after page. He has been credited for the Luv Delux music video on over 50 respectable blogs including MTV, Kanye West and artist Alex Pardee. His deigns are most sought after currently in the viral world and I have found some discussion in a web series interview of offers made to him and his partner by various production companies including Caporal Films (located in France), Future Shorts, and Underground Films.

So again with time additions and edits will be made accordingly but this article is valid and should not be opted for deletion. -John

One of the very few things on Wikipedia that is not negotiable is that articles must be verified by reliable sources. Blogs generally do not fall into that category. If you are having trouble finding material that meets the definition of reliable sources, that is usually an indication that the subject is not sufficiently notable. That he may be in the future is crystal ball gazing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a SPA user. I am a new user. I created my user account less than 48 hours prior to this message so please do not categorize me with SPA when I clearly have had no time to be involved in any other work. The articles are there, the sources are there I am compiling them into and organized legible fashion. I am not aware of a Wiki requirement stating that the article must be fully complete before posting. Rather if I am not mistaken the idea here is to post truthful and relevant information to involve others to add to informational articles of people both living and not whether in school or not. Maybe I am missing the point but why is my work not eligible while similar pages have been available for years. Most of which are articles people could care less about while mine is substantial.

Please Note: I have fixed the mentioned "mishmash" of red links. Please excuse as I am still learning the Wiki formatting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnart111 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly agree that there are many, many articles that most people would not care about, but as you see here, that is very much in the eye of the beholder. An oft-cited essay at these debates is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which basically refutes that line of reasoning however. While not a policy, it is generally seen as a valid point. You are also correct that articles do not have to be complete and perfect before posting, but they do need reliable sources attached in order to be kept. This debate will run for an entire week, so you have a good amount of time left to address the issues raised here. There is a beginner's guide to properly sourcing your article at WP:REFBEGIN that may be of some use to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and will do my best in the weeks time to add and omit as needed to maintain the status of the article. Thank you for the information regarding Wikipedia formatting etc. In addition I think its great that there are dedicated users that protect the Wikipedia principles otherwise the clutter of useless articles would make Wikipedia as a tool useless for search and research purposes. - John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnart111 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not everyone who receives a credit on a notable film is notable. According to Pollara, he is not a film producer on any notable films. He is a production assistant (among other jobs like camera assistant, grip). These jobs don't confer notability under normal circumstances. As noted in the production assistant article, it's basically a $10/hour job, so wikipedia editors shouldn't get the impression that it's akin to being the director or producer. Furthermore, going by the blue links in the filmography is deceptive. If you click on them, almost none of them link to articles about the films that Pollara worked on. Rather they link to disambiguation pages or totally different subjects that share the same name. It appears that the filmography is largely films that weren't notable enough to garner articles (perhaps student/amateur films). His work on notable films (Blades of Glory, Get Smart) are in minor capacities that wouldn't garner notability like starring, directing, producing or even DP or editor would garner. --JamesAM (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that same note, a careful analysis of the references listed shows that several of them do not directly relate to this individual. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference after the sentence about Affonso Beato doesn't mention Pollara at all. It's just Beato's website. And one link is just apparently the website of a relative. --JamesAM (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out Pollara does seem to be like the average "joe schmo" but this 20 year old did produce the last known "Thriller" recording. Still looking for valid sources but Mr. Jackson and his agent took part in the production as it was created and aired upon the 25th anniversary of the original "Thriller". Now maybe if Mr. Jackson were with us today this would not be as relevant. Not very many young filmmakers achieve such credits without family or close ties to the industry which this person does not have. He is self made and has done a great job. I am continuing to add as I research. Best, -John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.150.129 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's a video, not an audio recording. The link after that sentence doesn't mention Pollara at all. Aired where/when? Official/unofficial? Marketed anywhere? --JamesAM (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - I do note that the landscape changed significantly during the course of this AFD, the early delete votes are no longer relevant. –xeno^talk 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fourth Album

Articles for deletion/Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)

Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album

Articles for deletion/Hotness (album)

Articles for deletion/Sexuality (Rihanna song)

Articles for deletion/Dark Angel (Rihanna album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, ~~WP:HAMMER, and WP:CRYSTAL~~ as an upcoming album with no confirmed ~~title~~ or tracklist. ~~I think this should be merged to the Rihanna article and then deleted as an unlikely search term.~~ Chasewc91 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changed simply to delete per TenPoundHammer.~~Chasewc91 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rihanna now that this has a title. It still isn't notable enough for an article as the tracklist hasn't been confirmed, and – as mentioned by other editors – much of the info from this article is present there. Restore when the tracklist is confirmed.

Although I have changed my !vote to something other than delete, this should not be speedily kept as there are still delete arguments present. Chasewc91 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As more information becomes available in the coming days, this article would become more valuable/reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.29.221 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And when it does, this article can be recreated. There is not enough material to warrant an article at this point. Chasewc91 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER, not enough information yet. Can't merge and delete, that would violate GFDL; there's nothing to merge anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This album is heavily hyped and will be out in a couple of months anyway. We already have a lot of information regarding the songwriters who will be contributing to the album. There's no point in deleting it. Tikkuy (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. All the verifiable encyclopaedic information that currently exists is already at Rihanna's article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Crystal. Recreate when title and tracklist are known.—Kww(talk) 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. The Rolling Stone article and nearby release date means there's no feasible way to keep this article from existing.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD tag and various bits of sourced information have been removed several times by anonymous editors since the start of this discussion. As a result I have semi-protected the article until 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) (7 days from when I semi-protected it). If this discussion is closed before then, the closing administrator should consider removing the protection at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and I'd normally be the first person to vote delete). People are taking WP:HAMMER as law when it is not the be-all and end-all; far from it. The article may not be titled and a tracklisting is yet to be released, but surely the (sourced) infomation on production and the pre-release publicity is enough to warrent an article? Also, can someone direct me to the part of WP:CRYSTAL that this fails? Dale 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reliable info on production and such seems to be present at Rihanna, however, which is why I think we don't need this article. Especially since no one will be searching for "Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)" to get to the album's article when it's released. Chasewc91 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. ~~Title~~ and track list are unknown, and there's about a stub's worth of verified information on it so far. Info about this album, for now, belongs at the artist's page, where it is covered already. Cliff smith ^talk 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title has been confirmed, yes, but I still think that the ≤2 paragraphs here belong at the artist's page until the entire track list is confirmed as well. Cliff smith ^talk 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved the article to Rated R (Rihanna album) since it's now got a title, per Rolling Stone. Amalthea 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough third party confirmations and press at this point... although I am curious to know how a Ryan Seacrest tweet became a reliable source? - eo (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her label has confirmed the album title and release date. MTV Crumbsucker (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a confirmed album and has an official release date. There is enough information here to keep it... 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.180.129 (talk)
Keep Title, first single, release date, song info. What more do youi need?--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided to confirm title, singles, producers, release, guests, etc. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources, including Rihanna's official site, have confirmed the album's name, release date, and first single. The release is only a month away, meaning information relating to the album should just keep coming in. ---Shadow (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Good amount of sources, album to be released next month, no need in deleting now. Candyo32 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes WP:N by a fair amount. Also per Candyo32. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of references CloversMallRat (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Labour Party (UK)

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

Hardly notable. A single county council seat doth not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article desperately needs proper references and expansion, but unlike some other local parties with a single councillor, there's enough to demonstrate notability. The original expulsion of the group was covered extensively (e.g. [41][42] for just the first two I found). There's then frequent coverage, mostly from regional media, on Google News - mostly behind paywalls; unlike most local groups, few of these are solely election results. The background to the formation of the group is treated at length in The changing role of local politics in Britain, and the party is mentioned in several more general works, such as Party politics and local government. Warofdreams talk 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warofdreams. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ward makes good points. Article needs references, but getting 2% of the vote - as a minority party - is pretty good, and there are sources!. See BBC results - only a bit under UKIP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Legend

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

Declined G3; disputed prod. Prod rationale was: "Article has no references to verify content or establish notability. Not notable, crystal balling, possible hoax." The article has been edited by its original author to remove the most dubious claim (collaboration with Prope) but still has no references to substantiate content or establish notability. Muchness (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No sources, no web hits, no links, no media, no evidence, no anything. Even if it's not a hoax it still violates a dozen article standards and needs a delete. It even features an edit war in its short lifespan. If the hoax author did any actual research, they would have found that there's an actual announced game they could have created a page for; http://www.gamespot.com/news/6216991.html Datheisen (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 - Based on the article history, seems to refer to this trailer. Some edit warring seems to refer to a different Youtube series (see this diff) which also fails A7. Nifboy (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I apologise in advance if I'm saying something wrong, but this is a hoax, the game doesn't exist Nineko (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm generally against deleting fangame articles, but this one goes well beyond a mere fangame, being so pretentious as to claim to be the genuine article (despite some obvious gaffes made - Sonic games don't take place on Mobius, never have, never again will). As far as actually applying to Wikipedia guidelines, no citations, original research, and "confirmations" of things that would probably have rocked the gaming world so hard, we'd be SWIMMING in potential citations. Just nix it, please. --Shadow Hog (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fanmade. Has nothing to do Sega and goes against wikipedia guidelines. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yassine Bounou

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

No evidence that he has played in his semi-pro league Spiderone 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the person has been called up to the Morocco squad for the 2009 Francophone Games, but that is a youth competition, and he apparently trained with French club OGC Nice. No evidence that he has ever played in a fully-pro league or that coverage is sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Yao

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. I also question the truthfulness of the article as it is an almost exact replica of Ngueha Yankeu Spiderone 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that this person has played in a fully-pro league and coverage seems to be limited to club and fan club websites, with the occasional mention in a match report. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ngueha Yankeu

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

Hasn't played at a professional level in Thailand and fails WP:GNG. The article is almost identical to Christian Yao. Spiderone 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that this person has played in a fully-pro league and coverage seems to be limited to club and fan club websites, with the occasional mention in a match report. Jogurney (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft-redirect to en.wikt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nincompoop

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

Although this is a charming word, the Wikipedia isn't not a dictionary. This article is on the subject of Idiot (person) which the Wikipedia already has an article on. The article cannot reasonably be changed to give an encyclopedic entry, since the topic is a word, extending it would only result in the addition of things like the usage of the word in history and so forth and its etymology etc. The Wikipedia is not about the usage of words either, except in the most general sense (the Wikipedia covers topics like prefix, but tries to cover it for a whole class of words, and does so for all languages, whereas nincompoop is simply and only an English word that is already covered in Wiktionary).

The lexical companion already has the information on this word, and any more information should be placed there, in the more appropriate place. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not about the meaning or usage of words. Given that the synonymous article exists, the article should be deleted. Given the scope of the article, this article cannot be saved.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki anything which wiktionary wants, then delete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect, which is exactly the state it was in yesterday before someone came by and vandalized the darn thing. Powers ^T 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per LtPowers, and throw in protection to keep it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary per LtPowers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Since this essentially only exists as an article because of vandalism, and this AFD is into WP:SNOW country, would anyone have any strong objections to me just re-doing the redirect and protecting the page? Normally an admin shouldn't do such a thing when they have participated in an AFD debate, but this seems unlikely to be controversial at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) now that someone has objected to the redirect this would be out of bounds Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete There should not even be a soft redirect for this. Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Wikipedia. There should not be a soft redirect for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this word should be an exception.--Fartherred (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However this debate turns out, I never intended to suggest that the contributors intended abuse. Some articles just do not belong in Wikipedia regardless of how helpful the intentions of the contributors were.--Fartherred (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No one's suggesting a soft redirect for every word. But words that are valid Wikipedia titles (primarily, nouns) that do not have a reasonable on-wiki redirect target are certainly reasonable candidates for soft redirects. (That is, someone might genuinely be looking for information on nincompoops in general; the reason we don't have an article on them is that there's really nothing concrete to say. Rather than tell the reader "we don't know what you're talking about," we say "we don't have anything encyclopedic to say about nincompoops, but you can check out wiktionary for information on where the word came from." Powers ^T 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people seeking a "Nincompoop" article should be directed anywhere, they should be directed to the article Idiot (person). It they are not interested in the concept but interested in the word, any book or online dictionary will do. Wikipedia does not need to apologize for not having an article on nill or nip. Both words are contained in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. Those seeking "Nip" in Wikipedia are redirected to two articles using the word and abbreviations for notable Encyclopedia articles. Neither will Wikipedia need to apologize for not having "Nincompoop."--Fartherred (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletiopn aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabily

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

No external sources showing public interest and thus notability. Since it's easy to extend ubuntu with some open-source software to make it 'themish', there is nothing special about exactly this distro. The external links show nothing but the fact that this distro exists. Peni (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per [43], [44], [45] (under previous name), [46] (under previous name), [47] (under previous name), [48] (under previous name), and [49] (under previous name). Joe Chill (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three of these reviews are in the article so it already passed WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it's sufficient, since the sites only state the existence or the release of this OS. It is obviously only due to the thematic binding to Islam, which is the actual point of interest for the media. I thought, ~~WP:SOFT~~ WP:N would require a dedicated interest by a specialized source (not like vesti.bg) and not a pure "mentioning" in overview and comparison articles. --Peni (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't only state the existence. Only stating the existence would be like a page in a directory, a download page, or a sentence or two. These are news stories and reviews. A trivial mention would only state the existence. Reviews and new stories are not trivial mentions and they are reliable sources. WP:SOFT is about Mediawiki software. With all of these sources, there is no chance of this article being deleted. These sources have always shown notability per WP:N. If you're referring to the Computer World article as a trivial mention, just being reviewed on the same page doesn't automatically make it a trivial mention. The coverage in the article is eight paragraphs. Joe Chill (talk)
    - WP:N doesn't even say "specialized sources". What do you mean by specialized sources? This type of websites have always been acceptable in the hundreds of AFDs that I participated in. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [50] Its mentioned there. Notable. Dream Focus 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per this article in the Palestine Telegraph. Comte0 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus and Comte0, is that all that you think shows notability? Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose they mean those alone are enough to show notability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep. Read through that one, and then glanced at the rest listed. Didn't think there a reason to read through all the sources, that one alone enough to prove it. Dream Focus 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviewed in several reliable sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. CSD G7. decltype (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandoman

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

No sources, nominated via prod, but original author removed the tag saying "he is well known aound [sic] here" - no sources and can't find anything relevant on a Google search. Random Time 15:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would first say that not everything is on a Google search and I will also say that not all comics start out big. Sandoman was created months ago and since when does one person know what's well known in other countries (To be specific: Philippines). Rajhanz (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst that is true, Wikipedia has certain policies regarding notability. What we need is verifiable, reliable sources, which you haven't provided, and cannot be easily obtained with a google search Random Time 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a reliable source, then come here and ask the people. Rajhanz (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Un-sourced account produced by an SPA. --Whoosit (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~don't delete~~ DELETE Rajhanz (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Rajhanz makes a very good point. I have heard about Sandoman numerous times here. In fact, I was about to create an article on him. Kiism (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really now. Stop that. --Whoosit (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete.~~ Withdrawing. Mowiina (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator--NotedGrant Talk 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — only what appears to be self-published stuff found by search. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Danis

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

fails WP:ACADEMIC Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ya, nothing there of note. Lara 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is not just an academic. Does being a commissioner with the independent board for workers' compensation appeals in Quebec make him automatically notable? At what point does a judgeship make someone automatically notable? -- Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the normal standard I apply is a "high" judge - one in a court which can set precedent (in common law countries). A cousin of mine is an employment tribunal judge noted for her socialist views (hence the epithet Red Tam) but that isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added a number of references to him in the book On the take: crime, corruption, and greed in the Mulroney years by Stevie Cameron. These are more interesting than the present-day political science lectureship. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it add up to WP:GNG, though? That's a single work. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough here to establish notability and I've never heard of him so he's not making much of a local splash either. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as an academic, but a political figure based on the fall-out from his book: 52 GNews Archive refs [51], which is a good many for a person of Canadian interest His book had many significant reviews, even in the US. Needless to say, "I never heard of him" is one of the classic non-reasons. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously DGG did not read the AfD very carefully... or at all. His gsearch above is for Stevie Cameron's screed, perhaps one of best known books on Canadian politics in recent memory, and hence was able to conclude that this was "a good many for a person of Canadian interest...." Or, de M. Danis les sources se taisent. I've alerted DGG to his slip-up AND his inadvertent condescension. Eusebeus (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the disconnect between the AfD and the search; I did slip up here. I will revote after I check again. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's enough coverage here to show notability. Kevin (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I agree with Kevin, my researches also failed to turn up significant coverage. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cahiers Fashion Marketing

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

Non-notable publication Pontificalibus (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely unlikely for a magazine launched last year to be notable already, and this doesn't look like any exception. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Response: This is a company profile for Les Cahiers Fashion Marketing. It is indeed a notable European publication (and you would know if you were involved in the European fashion industry), even though it only began in 2008. The purpose is to share facts about the company, and I plan to expand the article to include date of inception, editor in chief, website, topics covered, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slcatino (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You would know if you were involved in the European fashion industry" isn't good enough. Show us coverage of this magazine in independent, reliable third-party publications and the article might qualify for notability. If the facts about the company are not publicly available anywhere else, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references are produced to bolster the assertions of notability. This is a specialised field, so I would not expect a vast flood of ghits. I find they are booked for the Feria Valencia (who can't spell Autumn, but that's irrelevant), and you seem to be able to order or download the magazine at http://www.hoepli.it/libro/les-cahiers-fashion-marketing-jun-jul-aug-2009-trimestrale-anno-numero-3.asp?ib=9772036312006&pc=000005004008000 (My Italian is not what it was - over to someone whose still is...) Apart from that, twitter, linkedin and similar looking places. Something more is required. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writer Response: LCFM is carried in Hoepli in Milan (Hoepli is a publisher and independent bookstore since 1870, one of the most authoritative in Italy), as well as Libreria Rizzoli (one of the leading publishers in Italy). Both of these have their own wikipedia pages, Ulrico Hoepli and Angelo Rizzoli. LCFM is also distributed in Fashion Room, an independent bookstore in Italy and the official bookstore of Pitti Immagine in Florence (the organizer of the biggest international exhibition in the fashion sector). I admit that the publication is created for a very niche market, but this niche is in demand and has caught the attention of fashion professors and students, as well as management in fashion companies. The type of information that the magazine provides is not readily available from other sources. Is there something specific you would like me to change or add to make this article more suitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slcatino (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Chris Neville-Smith's remark above about independent reliable sources. We're not doubting the magazine exists. Wikipedia cannot list everything, so there must be a level of notability established. Self-published or self-edited sources only come in for extra info. They are not establishers of anything. (Wikipedia cannot be used as a source either, because it's open to edit!) There must be some references to the magazine somewhere - you are more likely to know than me. I'm working on two sites and researching a book at the moment - so back to you... Peridon (talk)

Unfortunately, if it's a niche publication you'll have trouble establishing notability this early on. I hope you'll understand that Wikipedia is deluged by people trying to promote their new publications with a Wikipedia page, and everybody claims their publication grabs the attention of someone, therefore all claims to notability have to be verifiable. However, that's not to say this magazine will never be notable. A good example is You Me At Six. This band originally failed a deletion discussion in spite of the claims that they were on the way up. A few months later, they appeared on the front cover of NME, and then they did get their article back. If you can't prove notability now, I suggest keeping an eye out for coverage in the future, and coming back if and when that appears. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writer Response: Thank you for these comments, now I understand what notable sources you are looking for. We have not been mentioned in other major publications yet that can be linked on the web, but we have letters of praise from Politecnico di Milano and Camera della Moda in Milan. The Italian company ALTEREGO mentions our first issue in their website ALTEREGO, as well as ATELIER98 ATELIER and Polimoda Polimoda. However, if these are not enough I will keep my eye out for coverage that is more suitable for wikipedia. Perhaps this publication does not yet meet the criteria for the Company section of wikipedia, but can it be placed under Books or Magazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slcatino (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?: If you have a relationship to an entity which is on wiki and meets criteria ( will not be deleted as soon as someone examines it ) then for now you can probably move this information into the existing articles. Additional details about notable subjects can come from self-cites but they can't establish notability ( that anyone else cares). Obscure topics come up all the time, I use IEEE versus MTV as my standard comparison :) IEEE papers may come up on gscholar but I don't know where gfashion is although may be an interesting notion for people exploring image search/indexing :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the argument of the writer, it seems to be a case of not yet notable. Sicatino even at the end admits it is not notable as a company. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writer Response: It's not that this magazine is not notable, but the further sources we can provide are not in a form that can be represented through wikipedia (actual letters, etc.). What is the criteria for a book or magazine to be part of wikipedia? LCFM is published and available in bookstores around the world. Slcatino (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to meet the General Notability guideline. (There are notability guidelines for companies and books, but they don't really say anything extra.) Sources generally have to be publicly accessible, though not necessarily online. (If you have coverage in other magazines, that would count in your favour whether or not they are online - it's just that it will be more work to prove the coverage exists.) If this article gets deleted, you could probably request the article to be copied to your userspace and wait for further coverage to appear. If the magazine will become as notable as you believe, the sources will come. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has only 26 Google hits with Wikipedia included. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bracknell (UK Parliament constituency). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Bracknell parliamentary election

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

No other constituency has a page for the next election (or any previous election). All the contents of the page could easily be transferred to Bracknell (UK Parliament constituency). Philip Stevens (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bracknell (UK Parliament constituency) rather than delete, in order to preserve article history and comply with the GFDL. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree, a lot of the contents of the page should be merged into the constituency page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Bracknell (UK Parliament constituency). I'm not sure we need to go into this much detail for standard elections in parliamentary constituencies, but that's a content issue to discuss. Having been to Bracknell myself, can't say I'll be fighting anyone for that seat. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eastmain. I've never been to Bracknell, but I went through on a minibus twice a day for about a week 10 or so years ago when I was temping at Royal Ascot. It didn't inspire me to visit further, so it wouldn't be in my top 10 most desirable constituencies to represent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Bracknell (UK Parliament constituency). We deal with future elections in an election box. Any commentary on its significnace is likely to be WP:OR. WE do not need 649 of this kind of article (one per constituency) but that would be the logical conclusion of keeping it. Furthermore, the article (or rather most of the 649) would probably need deletion when the election is over. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability is a well accepted guide for inclusion, and the references used for verification (IMDB) are typically not accepted as reliable for biographies Kevin (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelet Argaman

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

Non-notable actress. PROD denied. Google does not show any significant coverage either in web or news searches. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Notability is not policy. WP:V and WP:NOR are, and they are staisfied with citations. The article is fairly well-written and WP:NPOV to boot. The Google test has been debunked numerous times before. - Draeco (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, notability is not policy. But it is a guideline that reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Certainly, one can verifiably prove the existence of just about anyone, but if we accept that as the standard, Wikipedia will soon devolve into a collection of trivia. Further, the only "reference" given is to Argaman's IMDB page, which is generally not considered a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have searched for sources on Google News Archive and Google Books but have been unable to find any. Draeco is correct that WP:V is policy; therefore, this article should be deleted. IMDb is not a reliable source and there are no other sources in the article, so none of the information can be verified. In addition to failing WP:BIO, this topic also fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until such time as the subject can meet notability requirements. She exists, yes... but so far does not have significant coverage in RS and so fails WP:BLP. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an A7 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). –Katerenka (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Tudose

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

Appears to be hoax. Google only turns up mentions taken from wikipedia and fantasy football. And then their's this starting post 8: http://loswonderkids.com/community/topic/7951-i-love-wikipedia/ ©Geni 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as A7, what was there recently was the result of vandalism, but no importance as a real or fantasy footballer was claimed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fedir Vovk

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

no assertion of notability, and no sourced notability. UltraMagnus^speak 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and keep. Third party sources indicate notability: [52] [53] and even [54]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added interwikis to more extensive articles on him in the Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias. Comments from someone who reads one of those languages would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Magog has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Encyclopedia of Ukraine article listed by Magog, and the Antonovych book now listed in the article, are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alef++ (programming language)

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

open source project hosted on Sourceforge - still in alpha with first files being available from July. Not notable - no indication of any usage whatsover. noq (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not even suggested. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Jihad

its all about the failure of a campus love and now it is in the hands story makers with their own titile version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshibum (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Having a few newsreports(even if they are from reliable sources) do not warrant a separate article.

The core of the article contain synthesised information - the sources mostly talk about a court case and allegations by some organizations about "Love Jihad", but there is no other reference about the existence of such an organization or its "activity" as it is put in the article. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 09:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced, but needs a cleanup UltraMagnus^speak 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not have a problem with the sources - but within the sources, the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references. As it is a non-existing organization, it is unlikely to get cleaned up or improved and we should think whether we need an article for every reference in every newssources Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, that is because it is a concept, not an organisation. --UltraMagnus^speak 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you go through the sources and present the concept in a way that is suitable for an article? You are welcome to give it a try Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article (s)he don't interested. Currently article is well sourced and every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom--Purger.kl (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) — Purger.kl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Whatever you feel, as this comment is the only edit you made in WP altogether, read good faith. An article's merit is not based on the number of phrases occuring in the article Zencv^{Lets discuss} 08:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You previously said "the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references", now saying it is not important--Purger.kl (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where did I write about importance? I only wrote that those vague references are conveniently synthesised to present "Love Jihad" as an activity. Anyway, what was your point when you wrote every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom??? I can start any article where I can fill it with phrases top to bottom from the same sources. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I click on the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and see plenty of notable coverage of this. [55] I read through, and I see other notable mention in reliable sources as well. This is a real phenomenon. Dream Focus 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no such phenomenon. TOI is a RS, but it only mentions some allegations by some Catholic and Hindu orgs. which was then ordered by a court to investigate. The question is whether we have to cherrypick such a phrase from the source and create an article for a non existing activity for which there is NO proof and for which there exist no other sources Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided reads at the top

“

KOCHI: The Kerala HC on Wednesday directed the state government to provide information within three weeks on plans and projects of Love Jihad, an organisation which allegedly converts young girls to Islam in the state.

”

Its an organization, seen as noteworthy enough to get media attention, and that of a state government. Dream Focus 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newspaper sensation of the week. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a new concept and started to get attention in September 1,2 this term love jihad is used even in the PTI (Press Trust of India).All major news papers in India covered this news. I also feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article he don't interested.:Lee2008 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read fourth point under WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article

”

— WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, fourth point

what do you think about this news (announcements, sports or tabloid) if you are taking about neutrality you can edit with sufficient evidence. Lee2008 (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having this news in another article(eg: NDF, which had been accused of doing this "activity") in a context is OK, but I dont think these news merit an article of its own Zencv^{Lets discuss} 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However new a phenomenon it may be ("Newspaper sensation of the week.") it's certainly well-documented as a planned, organized effort. The fact that "The core of the article contain synthesised information." is irrelevant so long as we are not the synthesizers. -MBHiii (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is funny - I thought it is our job also to make sure that synthesised article don't make it unfairly. The starting sentence goes like "Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is an activity under which young Muslim boys reportedly target college girls for conversion to Islam by feigning love." which is not supported by any source. We may have to change it to "alleged" activity as the sources just talk about an allegation. But then the article will have fair share of weasel words. Still comes the question, where to find sources which would support the existence of such an activity or organization. The only thing which can be written in the article about "Love Jihad" would be allegations and appeal by the court to investigate Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how carefully you read the ref. cit. for that first sentence. About the only thing I'd support changing is "young Muslim boys" to "young Muslim men". -MBHiii (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the sources - there are 2 grave problems. 1) This whole thing is just an allegation(allegation is well cited, I dont dispute that) by some organizations and the decision by a court to investigate the allegation. 2) It is just overhyped and sensationalized - the incidents allegedly happened in some isolated parts of India - the way it is cited in the article given an impression that this is sort of a global activity(like Al Qaeda). In my opinion, it is impossible to put these things in a neutral way Zencv^{Lets discuss} 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-cited and growing phenomena that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. With respects to Zencv... and while not meaning to wax... Yes, Wikipedia might properly look askance at overhyped and sensationalized subjects or subjects whose existance is alleged. But real or not, once WP:GNG is met with coverage in reliable sources, the inclusion standards have been met. Dispite any editor's personal feelings about the subject itself, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you with respect to verifiability, not truth, which is clear to me. The problem I find is that unlike Flying saucer, the respectable sources here are ambivalent at best whether there exists an organization called "Love Jihad", or in general what exactly is "Love Jihad". There are some polemic articles from questionable references which are cited in the article(Frontpage being one of them) which present as if it is truth. Flying saucer may be a myth popularized through television, but within that context, one can easily explain what Flying saucer is in a way that suits an article in any respectable encyclopedia. It is rather difficult in this case is the reason why we have sentences like So far, little is known about the group behind the "love jihad", but it is alleged to be linked to a fundamentalist Muslim group called the Popular Front of India and its student wing Campus Front - which they deny Zencv^{Lets discuss} 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a metter for cleanup then, and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then perhaps we difer a bit on our interpretations of significant coverage that meets WP:GNG ? Few government bodies ever admit to problems until after the popular press has forced acknowledgement... so their waffling is of no surprise. That an ongoing problem is being investigated and given significant coverage in such reliable sources as Press Trust of India (1), Times of India, Express Buzz (1), Times of India (2), Times of India (3), Times of India (4), Christian Today, Zee News, The Hindu, Union of Catholic Asian News, Times of India (5), Express Buzz (2) (among dozens more exploring the subject), has convinced me that the WP:GNG has been met. And unlike Flying saucers or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, this subject appears to have far greater substance and less smoke and mirrors or wishful thinking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the allegations are hysterical, the existence (well sourced and notable) means this page should exist. Zencv's gaming and revert warring over this term is getting tiresome.Pectore^talk 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything here - instead have been an active participant in the discussion. Not only that you failed to assume good faith, it looks like you barely read the article, its edit history and this discussion Zencv^{Lets discuss} 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Francois

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

Appears to be a non-notable professor. Google News Archive returns no substantial results, while Google Books returns irrelevant results. Google Scholar returns several articles, but none are cited by more than five publications. Nguyen Francois appears to fail WP:PROF. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His name is Francois Nguyen, and people should search by that; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Delete as copyvio from the university's website. [56] Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I won't rewrite the article since a look through searches for "Francois Nguyen" return no coverage that indicates that Nguyen passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alan Grayson. NW (Talk) 13:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media coverage Alan Grayson's annoucement of the Republican's health care plan

This article belongs as a section within the article on Alan Grayson. Trilemma (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, and quickly. The title is polemical; it's not Grayson's announcement of the plan, but his partisan attack on it. I've moved it even for the time being before the merge to a more neutral title: Mass media coverage of Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican's health care plan DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended above, it is very rare for media coverage to be independently notable of the topic being covered. Ben Kidwell (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork, violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, recentism, not being a notable topic in it's own right (in other words, there are no sources that comment on the coverage, and for having a long-ass title. Abductive (reasoning) 07:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content here is not relevant to the Alan Grayson article, is not notable, and does not improve the article. I created the article, see my comment on talkScientus (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge This doesn't deserve its own article. Does Joe Wilson's outburst of comments have its own article? Didn't think so. A8UDI talk 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This can be cut down and included in the article on Rep. Grayson. Warrah (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DGG indicates, Grayson did not "announce" the Republican health care plan, but rather he attacked it. Furthermore, I don't see why "mass media coverage" of his statement would be notable. Yes, Grayson made a statement, and it was reported in mass media, but it's rare for media coverage of an event to become notable in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You've got to be kidding me. We don't need an article for every little Republican-contrived "scandal." —Sesel (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no need for an AfD here. Just merge the content as appropriate and redirect. --agr (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More appropriate to WikiNews. Orderinchaos 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, Sesel, Orderinchaos, Metropolitan90, et al. This is not Wikinews. Merge as an alternate. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the commentary here is not really notable period. And, fundamentally, it is Grayson and Grayson's beliefs that are notable. The Squicks (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with several of the reasons posted above. Reliefappearance (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I't meets the guidelines of WP:Notability. —bambinn (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tan | 39 15:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Khumbanyiwa

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

Subject does not meet the notability requirements of WP:Entertainer - he has apparently had three film appearances, one uncredited, one minor, and the third in the film District 9, the last being his only role of any significance. The article as it exists appears to exhaust the third party sources concerning him specifically. A proposed merger / redirect of the subject page into or to District 9 met with some resistance (link), hence this nomination. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it is worth, the only in-depth coverage about the actor that I could find is the interview referenced in the article. For the other films, it appears that he only had bit roles (such as Jerusalema, which I just created and researched and found nothing about him). There is indication that he may become notable by Wikipedia's standards in the near future based on the attention received after District 9, but we should not hold onto this hope. I would encourage deletion with the caveat of paying attention for the next year or so to see if any new significant coverage surfaces. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Just a not-too-relevant reference: he is mentioned at some extent here, quoting his opinion that District 9 does not intend to offend Nigerian people. Goochelaar (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that this is not significant coverage: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." This is kind of a side mention and more related to District 9, where that quote could be placed if desired. Does not help the biographical article, though. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, it is certainly not an article about Khumbanyiwa; hence my "weak" vote. I cited it because he is somewhat quoted as a kind of "authority": one might argue that if BBC give some prominence to the opinion of person X, then person X is quasi-almost-somewhat-notable-ish. I am the first to acknowledge that this is very far from a strong argument, or from any argument. Goochelaar (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is a different presentation of the interview cited in the actor's Wikipedia article; not sure if this changes anything, being published by a different source. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:ENTERTAINER because he has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films [and] television shows". His only significant role so far is in District 9; his other roles are bit roles. I think it is possible for him to achieve notability if his newfound popularity through District 9 leads to anything concrete. No problem with recreation if he is evidenced to have a couple more significant roles in notable films, such as in the South African film that he mentioned started filming this month. If article is recreated, I encourage recovering page history since there are some details to serve as background if he finds notability. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think this is a case of almost but not quite notable. It's after all not one of the starring roles in District 9. Probably another such film would do it. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Delete the article for now, it has been over three weeks since the nomination, giving a chance for more sources to be published. Users will have to be satisfied with Imdb until he crosses into notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been relisted three times and still fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Malawi, he's a major star because of these few roles. We cannot use the Western measuring stick, just as we often treat African music notability different from US/UK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bwilkins--NotedGrant Talk 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New York Red Bulls. — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juninho and Tulio

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

Contested PROD. This is one article about two soccer players! Juninho may meet WP:ATHLETE, but what little is known about Tulio shows he definitely isn't notable. Therefore I would suggest deleting this article, and perhaps creating a new one on Juninho if sources can be found to show he is indeed worthy. Giant Snowman 04:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 04:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Big Way (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, under what criteria? Giant Snowman 04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the New_York_Red_Bulls article. This article is less about the particular athletes (who are described as obscure in the article itself) than about the bizarre publicity based motivation for drafting them. However, it is clearly not an independently notable topic so a merge to the sports team is in order. Ben Kidwell (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a bizarre situation. If Juninho can be proved to be notable then he can stay but this can't go on like this as the two aren't Siamese twins. Spiderone 08:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ben Kidwell. Apparently this article is about the Red Bulls drafting two obscure Brazilian soccer players whose names were similar to two better-known players. However, I can't even figure out who the better-known Tulio was. Do we have an article about him? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be Marcus Tulio Tanaka Spiderone 08:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that but Tanaka didn't begin his pro career until 2001, while the MLS Tulio was drafted in 1996. Maybe it's Túlio Costa? Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Early SNOW close. Clear consensus to delete as a hoax. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deified Submarine Palace

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

This is not actually a real game (or at least not a notable one), but an elaborate fake trying to pass itself off as an official game in the Touhou Project series, or else other people on the net are trying to pass it off as an official Touhou game. There is no mention of this game on the official website of the Touhou Project's creator ZUN, seen here, and as such this article should be deleted. 十八 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, no RS. Nifboy (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fake; there is an official web page that I have provided a link to as a source. Blogs are usually not acceptable sources as per WP:RS. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that very website says:

※これはネタ動画の為の、ネタページです！※　東方海神宮
"*This is a joke page for a joke movie!* Touhou Kaizinguu"
Ｑ、インストールできません。
Ａ、ゲームじゃないんです。
"Q. It won't install."
"A. It's not a game."

Not to mention that the video starts with "13th Imitation Shrine Maiden", and the ending scene has the characters talking about how it's unofficial. --TheSinnerChrono (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ZUN's blog would be an acceptable source for a TH13 announcement per WP:SELFPUB. The site you provided, which is also self-published, fails #4: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Nifboy (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Big Way (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either hoax or non notable, either way burn it UltraMagnus^speak 12:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus that the subject was notable, and that the current article is troublesome because of the promotional tone. However, there is no consensus on whether the problems are so serious that deletion is warranted, and as such I will give the "keep" side the benefit of the doubt and hope some rewrite addresses the problems in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illumina Methylation Assay

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

I declined a speedy deletion nomination on this as spam for Infinium. Promotional tone, and "sourced" to another Wikipedia article (among other things); but may be notable - leaving it to the discretion of others. Orange Mike | Talk 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find it very difficult to evaluate an article if I can't tell what it's about. The lead of this article tells us what Illumina Methylation Assay uses, what it generates, what it doesn't encompass, what it can measure and what it can play a significant role in, but wtf is it? If anyone can tell me that then I'll have a go at checking for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Delete as advertising. All this does is describe the methodology (and usage) of a methylation assay produced by Illumina. There's nothing here to suggest that their product is any more notable than their competitors. It might also fall under WP:NOTHOWTO, but I'd have to wait for a colleague in Molecular Biology to tell me how generalizable this procedure would be. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionally keep. DNA methylation is thought to be very important in affecting how easily a gene is turned on or not. This chip assays, in one hit, the amount of methylation at each of 15,000 genes. So given a bit of tissue - eg from part of a developing embryo of an organism; or part of a cancer growth; or whatever - this chip gives a strong steer as to which of those genes look to be unusually strongly turned on (or unusually strongly turned off). Which could be just what you need to know for cutting edge functional genomics. In response to Bfigura, yes, it would be better if the article did more to establish what the competitive landscape is around Illumina's chip -- ie who else may be making microarray chips, and where the technology fits in with the list of methods at DNA_methylation#Assays_to_Detect_DNA_Methylation. But IMO those are ways in which the article could be improved, not grounds for deleting it. I can't say it's an area I'm an expert in, but my understanding is that this field of microarray assays is pretty much dominated by Affymetrix and Illumina. If I am right in thinking that this is a current state-of-the art tool with very limited competition, then it is something we should certainly keep an article on. "Illumina Methylation" pulls up a lot of hits on Google Scholar, which also suggests notability. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response that sounds like an argument for the creation of an article (methlation assays or some such), not for the retention of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More or less my point. But what I don't know (and what i think Jheald is getting at) is that it might be easy to convert this article to a more general one on methylation assays. But I don't know if that's true, or if so, how to go about it. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two approaches aren't necessarily in conflict. We can have an article for Ford Mondeo as well as one for large family car. Jheald (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In addition to the ford mondeo however we have several other cars ever the Lada Riva. Here we have a lonely product. I have actually done a methylation assay and you can use any genomic (not transcript) array as the trick is with the bisulfate + enzyme treatment and not with your state of the art platform, so this is blatantly a illumina advert, but it is well written. I have spent ages fighting incorrect edits by what I assume are high school kids/undergrads on DNA microarray so it is a sin deleting something correct. I vote to change into a Methylation assay page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 October 2009

I work with the array; it is probably impossible for anyone to judge any information on it without significant background, since it is highly specific matter. Nevertheless, the information here is a more or less copy-paste of promotional materials by the company - my impression is that an employee was assigned with wiki entry (do not want to jump into conclusions though). The overall quality of the entry is rather poor, and I think it requires substantial rewriting in order to make any sense to inexperienced reader (even any reader at all). I suggest not keeping it in this form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.183.11 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. This article is currently fundamentally an advertisement and only experts can tell whether the sources are about the method generally or the product. ^Bongo_matic 05:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need to accept my point as a point of "expertise?" Will be happy to provide it, since this is an advertisement and it should not be included in its present form here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.202.104 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Big Way (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. There are at least 3 published peer-reviewed articles in good quality reliable journals with very substantial coverage about it specifically as a method: Pfeiffer et al, Gunderson et al, and Staff et al. & that is sufficient for a specific article. I have not yet made a search for articles published using the technique, but if there are many, that would be relevant also. What is not appropriate is the extent of detail on how to use it. We're not a lab manual. What's needed is the informations so that someone can understand it. fig. 2 is unnecessary, as are details like number of repeat cycles, and the proprietary names of all the software. What needs to be added is a clear brief statement of how this is different from other microarray methods. Is this, for example, the only so far developed microarray methylation method? If no one else cuts the article, I'll give a try, but my knowledge is second-hand. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete or wp:incubate this could serve as a good base for an article on methlation assay or similar UltraMagnus^speak 12:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Solely because the article is poorly written? I don't think that's a consensus reason for deletion or removal from article space. Can you please clarify? ^Bongo_matic 12:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the votes to keep, I think diverting the attention of experts in the subject is wasteful, as there are less specific articles needing attention more (microarray itself). Regarding the fact that a votes from experts are needed, see above: I (aspiring expert) and another expert user have voted delete. Incubate however sound like a nice option. --Squidonius (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because it is so promotional. The writing is clearly by someone in the company's employ, and this COI has tainted this article irretrievably. Additionally, once the how-to is stripped from the article, very little remains for an encyclopedic treatment. Q: What information would a user of Wikipedia need to know about this topic? A: Not the company sales pitch, that's for sure. They'd want to know if the system sucks compared to its competitors. Wikipedia exists to tell users the real deal about the topics it covers. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a joke, not merely promotional, a real process, which may be notable. This may need expertise to fix up. I can't help, as I haven't done any laboratory work in biology since 1986. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. WP:RFD is that way. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Sound

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

Entirely unnecessary redirect. Should every line of the song redirect to the album? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if someone doesn't know the name of that song, and they think it's called Let There Be Sound, they'll type that in. I just do that to help people navigate easier. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Let there be guitar. Nobody has deleted that yet or proposed it for deletion. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let there be deletion. There are plenty of sites where you can search by lyrics; this isn't one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bowmans

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we do delete this then The Bowmans (Hancock) becomes the primary meaning of "The Bowmans", it will have to be moved accordingly. PatGallacher (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE The Bowmans are awesome and deserve to have a page on Wikipedia. DO NOT DELETE ~Derik Rhum

Delete Seems to meet only #12 of WP:BAND, but I can find no reliable sources for their tour of Europe. In any case this autobiography would require a massive rewrite to remove peacock terms and make it NPOV. Delete unless further sources can be found to show how it meets WP:MUSIC, for example, evidence in reliable sources of major competition wins etc... --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders Bros., Inc.

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

Delete. Fails WP:ORG -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JUJUTACULAR | TALK 01:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to show no evidence of notability and the subject appears to lack significant coverage. Voting in favour of delete as the subject fails to meet the general notability guideline. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7, organization with no claim of significance. Intelligentsium^review 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. The argument by the keep voters that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE was discounted, as she was not actually an athlete and therefore does not qualify for the sports players’ inclusion criteria. Per the discussion below, she also fails to meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. NW (Talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Mullins

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

Unfortunately, this person doesn't seem to have done anything to prove they can pass our notability policies for people. iMatthew ^talk at 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worked at the top level in her sport, justifies notability. We got a few refs as well to back up the info in the article.--WillC 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't defined by working at the top level for a few weeks, if she was even around that long. It takes time to establish notability, which she never did. If she ever returns and sticks around long enough to do something important, we can then consider giving her an article. We give too many articles to minor wrestling people. Additionally, the amount of refs don't matter. iMatthew ^talk at 10:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate how broad it is, but ATHLETE does just that. Take baseball, for example. Someone could play in 1 game, but according to ATHLETE, that automatically makes them notable enough to have a article (now you see why I hate that guideline and wish it would be changed, and why I am against it being applied to wrestling since every local jobber than appears on one episode of WWE TV would get a article). TJ Spyke 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources, and I agree with WillC. Get Dumb 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning towards delete~~, agreed with iMatt that appearing once or twice on WWE TV is not the top level of her sport, especially since she wasn't even in a match. Appearing in FCW doesn't establish notability either, since it is nothing but a glorified farm team. The "sources" used are for the most part unreliable and don't help establish notability. She isn't notable in wrestling, but I haven't researched her modeling career enough yet to make a 100% decision either way. Right now I am leaning towards delete. Nikki♥311 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find much on her modeling career, except her appearance in Playboy (but not as a playmate)....so now my opinion is to delete. Nikki♥311 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't say she performed at the highest pro level and invoke "Athlete" when she was an interviewer - that's not an athlete. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WillC Tarheel95 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming keep Big Way (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will's argument is flawed - she has not worked "at the top level of her sport", she's an interviwer - and that's not a sport ;) MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk

Correct, and the above two votes will obviously not be taken seriously. iMatthew ^talk at 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the relevant guideline ought to be WP:ENT, and passing or failing WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. Has she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"? Appearances in multiple notable productions seems clear (WWE and Playboy). I'm unsure about the significance of those appearances as I have virtually no experience with either WWE or Playboy. Gruntler (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She appeared once or twice on ECW in a role that only lasted minutes. I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for Playboy appearances....I'm sure a mere pictorial wouldn't be enough to establish notability (whereas Playmates or centerfolds would be a different story). In my opinion, WP:ENT isn't met either. 76.17.38.195 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment is mine. I wasn't logged in. Nikki♥311 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's currently on the main WWE roster and appeared in Playboy. There are other less notable Playboy models with articles. LucyDoo (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being there doesn't mean she's done anything. A small photoshoot and just being on the roster doesn't tell me what she's done to deserve an article. iMatthew ^talk at 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - She has been in a featured place on WWE TV and not just the once either. She's on the main WWE roster to back that up. Suspect a POV push by the nominator. Keep !! Justa Punk !! 06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Listen, like I said. This is a discussion. What do you think I'm doing? I'm discussing some of the comments that I disagree with. Strike out your comment. iMatthew ^talk at 10:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring to your nomination as a POV push, not the discussion. There is no reason for me to strike out anything, unless you are trying to own this AfD. !! Justa Punk !! 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How is my nomination a POV push? And of course there is a reason to strike your comments out. When you make idiotic and pointless comments, they should be struck. iMatthew ^talk at 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not adequate to meet WP:N, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO. — Jake Wartenberg 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources strong enough to establish notability. Tone 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myers' cocktail

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Myers' cocktail

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

The significance of the subject is established only by self-published sources. causa sui × 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SPCs, appears to be promoting a fringe remedy promoted by a non-notable doctor. Language such as "treated many patients with an intravenous nutrient cocktail therapy for over 25 years" sounds like quackery from daytime television commercials. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable alternative medicine even if it is quack like. Checking google scholar reveals quite a few sources, I don't understand the nominators claim that "The significance of the subject is established only by self-published sources" - this is the case with one of the papers cited but not the other and plenty others exist. Problems with the wording of an article is not a reason to delete it - edit it instead! Smartse (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding some sources would surely improve the article and obviate this AFD. Please be my guest. causa sui × 06:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. google scholar search reveals several clinical trial published in reputable journals, I added one to the article already. The article needs to be rewritten, which I will work on, but not deleted. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this news article which seems to confirm that this is definitely notable. Smartse (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete this article. Skomorokh, barbarian 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Press

AfDs for this article:

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

This article constitutes original research and is doomed to that fate. Also, the notability of the subject is not demonstrated.

The article cites no references that actually mention the subject other than one patent.
The primary editor of the article is probably the single best person in the world to know of the existence of any secondary sources verifying the claims in the article—yet there are none.
The thrust of the article is inference and interpretation of referenced facts, but the claims are only indirectly supported.
Beyond the patent, none of the references other than directories even mentions the subject. Notability is not established.

If the main point of this article is ever published as fact in a reliable source, then (depending on the depth of coverage) the subject could be covered as notable and in an article that is not original research with reference to that source. Until then, this article cannot form part of any encyclopedia.

It is worth noting that the "facts" assembled as synthesis can give inaccurate or one-sided impressions of the situation. For example, this article makes no mention of the fact that Press sued Forest, but lost at the summary judgement phase (see this book). Does that make the claims in this article wrong? Maybe, maybe not—but it certainly demonstrates why an encyclopedia is not the place for original research. ^Bongo_matic 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is plenty of assertion of notability, but unfortunately it is not borne out by the sources. Uniformly except the patent, the references presented support only ancillary points, leaving the main thrust of each paragraph as unsupported original research. References 13 and 15 are to the same article, which discusses Nitroglyn but not Press.

Going by the version at time of AfD, the problems with this article may be summed up by examining the final two sentences. Reference 18 is an obituary of Lowey and makes no mention Press or any controversy. Gaping NPOV flaws and original synthesis are no reason to delete an article, but if synthesis and original research are intrinsic to the article due to an almost complete absence of mention in independent reliable sources, then no article on this topic is possible.

This is a neat story, and I would like to see it kept iff it can be substantiated by sources covering Press himself rather than only events or facts tangential to the main topic of the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - help improve it!!

If my opinion is worth hearing. I have several points to make, and our colleague Bongo's constant and less than constructive flagging everything, and biting comments, has assisted me in making at least one of them:

FIRST; the reference that shows that H. Press ultimately lost in a fight with FOREST labs, has nothing to do with the issues involving KEY corp which released the first sustained release products, originally under a license from Press. AS I understand from Mr. Press, it was KEY which conspired to deal with Forrest, which ultimately let the cat out of the bag, on which all the others jumped to also to steal Press' thunder....and thus the reference to Press's loss to Forrest, only serves to obfuscate what we DO have as facts, so ably pointed out by WikiDan when he WITHDREW the first AfD, i.e. that Press filed FIRST for patent, and as I elsewhere pointed out, that patent which we now know was awarded after Lowey's "me too" patent, was a PROCESS patent, and thus ALL it is not synthesis, but BLACK LETTER LAW, that all subsequent applications of the concept of "sustained release" were based on that "prior art". This is incontrovertible THAT PRESS WAS FIRST TO PATENT..... and it would appear this was understood by WikiDan when he withdrew the first AfD after realizing that; and,

SECOND; lack of objectivity, and who knows what other motives.... on the part of Bongo, who has attacked every article I have written, or edited; even to the point of attacking an article written by DigitalC, when he completely re-wrote one that I erroneously posted as a newbie (see [57])... I think his biting remarks... in the talk page.... ""Interview"? Give us all a break! Bongomatic 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)", shows his attitude towards this writer.

FINALLY; I have asked for a fair amount of time, (perhaps a few weeks) to investigate the Remington's article, that, I think supported my assertions... I had it in my possession and lost to a book borrower who never returned it. Check it out yourselves, it's hard to find an old copy of this tome. I am searching.

So, let's work together to further document this. I feel that the very fact of the patent, and that it was filed for FIRST, is sufficient to merit SOME kind of article, lest lowey and forrest will have stolen not only his fair compensation during his lifetime, but even the man's legacy for having truly changed the way medication is administered.

Drsjpdc (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment demonstrates that the primary contributor to this article believes that Wikipedia is a place for original research, and is seeking time to improve the quality of that research (don't get me wrong—improvement in accuracy is a good thing even if OR). The comment demonstrates no understanding of the OR policy whatsoever. Since he believes that I'm out to get him, perhaps an uninvolved editor could attempt to explain the OR policy to him in a neutral fashion? ^Bongo_matic 22:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the sign say in the psychiatrist's office; "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you".... here's yet another eference to Bongo's attempts to remove everything I write... [58] this one survived AfD. But he even challenged by COI, that it was a conflict that I once was a board member of a tenant that moved in there, long after I was not involved with the tenant's Board. The facility is owned by the IOC and the City of Lausanne... QED?

Drsjpdc (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on its merits. I'm not going to referee the local combatants, or the patent claimants either. A substantial claim for this invention is supported adequately by sources, and amounts to notability, but the present article is indeed a little one sided in an obvious way. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Claim for an invention does not establish notability under WP:BIO or WP:PROF (being awarded a patent is explicitly mentioned as not being grounds for inclusion), and doesn't get any mentions under WP:OUTCOMES. ^Bongo_matic 07:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no reliable secondary sources that address the subject in detail (please feel free to prove me wrong). Also I dislike the conflict of interest associated with someone writing an article about their father, in particular with this comment on the talk page expressing that COI is irrelevant, as he may be the only person on the planet who knows the story, which by definition, is failure to pass the general notability guidelines and reliable source guidelines, and the verifiability policy.--kelapstick (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Help make this right. Anyone know off hand who was [Elisha Gray]? Alexander G. Bell beat him to the patent office (by maybe a day?) and got ALL the credit. But Gray probably was the real inventor of the telephone. In this case, Press was the first to file for a patent, and Lowey took his ideas, ran to the patent office a little later, then produced products using Press' patent, and TOOK all the credit and the financial reward.

Can't we get past the COI issue to not punish a man whose life work was stolen. What COI can I really have? It is long past any statute of limitations for re-opening the lawsuits, so there's no monetary motive. The man is dead, and I stand to get no personal gain, or aggrandisement from this. It's just to see what's right, finally see the light of day.

Drsjpdc (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, lots of people know who Elisha Gray is, because that article is sufficiently referenced to assert notability and verifiability. No one here is denying that Howard Press may have gotten a bum deal, but getting a bum deal does not make one inherently notable. Receiving significant coverage in reliable third party sources asserts notability, and that is lacking in this case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about a COI issue. This is about not having enough sources that discuss Howard Press and the patent issue. How many of the sources actually mention Press? DigitalC (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the above statement, it appears that you are stating that since this story has not been published elsewhere, it should be available here in Wikipedia. This is a direct statement that this article is intended to be original research.

Instead of doing original work here, the appropriate course would be to write a fully-referenced article for publication elsewhere. If it's published in a reliable journal, then a Wikipedia article (even if you write it, per WP:COS) can cite that source.

If your view is that that's more difficult, that's correct—and that's how it's supposed to be. Original research is supposed to be held to a high standard of research, while Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced to have facts and interpretations that are uncontroversially supported by references. ^Bongo_matic 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nowhere above do I imply that original research is acceptable. What I was trying to do was to inform Drsjpdc that the problem is not one of COI, rather that the references are insufficient. DigitalC (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DigitalC, that the message wasn't clear—it was a reply to Drsjpdc's comment above starting with "So Help make this right". ^Bongo_matic 01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I really don’t understand the argument. The guy unquestionably filed his patent first. It was a process patent. So, that means that any product made with anything remotely time release was based on Press’ ideas, and almost certainly violated his intellectual rights. I really don’t begin to understand how that guy got away with taking the credit from Press, but he was clearly second. I doubt that this could happen in today’s courts. Further, just as obviously, he stood on Press’ back to make himself famous. Just from the perspective of the fact that Press’ concept created a sea change in the delivery of medication, and it was a major contribution to pharmacy, medicine and therefore to all humanity, I think this article should stand, and if necessary, let’s improve it through collaborative effort. I do however, agree with DGG that this article is written from a somewhat non-objective viewpoint, and I think that we try to resolve that. Waynethegoblin (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:— Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - DigitalC (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's claims of intellectual rights infringement are weak at best. Press brought his invention to Lowey because he didn't have the funds to develop it himself. So this is either a case of Press not properly protecting his rights when he asked Lowey to develop the process, or it's a case of Lowey claiming credit (but not actually infringing on Press' patent). In either case, that one fact (which is poorly documented at best) is not sufficient to raise Press to the level of notability generally required by Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Waynethegoblin is also undertaking original research and synthesis. The latest edit to the article's talk page shows the futility of trying to do original research here. This is simply not a venue where competing ideas about content can effectively be debated. ^Bongo_matic 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - In light of the interesting research showing that there WAS prior art; and based on WikiDan's last analysis, as well as (G-d, I hate to admit this) Bongo, who said

Instead of doing original work here, the appropriate course would be to write a fully-referenced article for publication elsewhere. If it's published in a reliable journal, then a Wikipedia article (even if you write it, per WP:COS) can cite that source.

, I have to agree to delete the page. I do plan to take that advice, and try to get some kind of article published elsewhere...

So, if I could ask that whichever admin deletes, also userfy's the article in place of the copy I placed in my sandbox... I would appreciate that.

Oh, let me say that I appreciate all the effort that those who actually looked at this earnestly, gave to the project. Thanks, Sincerely.

I struck out my previous comment, capitulating, because I had not reviewed the actual patents... In the discussion I rebutted the above idea that Press was not first, as follows: not synthesis but facts...

What I said there was:

However, the fact is that Consolazio's patent ^[1] was not for the purpose of releasing medication over time, for the therapeutic purpose of providing medication for an extended period. He expressly states that this "honeycomb" matrix he created was for the purpose of "preventing gastric irritation" (see Lines 15-20, Col 1, Pg 1 of his patent)caused by releasing all the salt at once. Thus, the crux of this patent's effect on the field, is that, although it was a generally good idea, he never put two and two together. Moreover, his matrix would never have been suitable to the sustained release purpose developed by Press.
As to the idea that Lowey's patent was the first to mention ethylcellulose; Press' patent, which was clearly for a process (see lines 50-75, col 2, page 1) was intended to cover ANY such substrate, by which the medication could be slowly released (presumably including ethylcellulose, or whatever) (See also Lines 38-50, Col 2, Pag 2) and in fact even covered systems by which a permeable membrane would MUCH later be used (see lines 60-65, Col 2, Pg2)... as such, and since it WAS filed before Lowey's, it was actually, to be fair, the first to enunciate this PURPOSE and entire PROCESS.... this (admitted supposition) had to be from where Lowey got his idea... and ran to patent a PRODUCT. It turns out that a product patent is legally easier to defend than a process patent, and it may well be that Press was either poorly legally advised, or honestly that greed was at some level in his mind, but it seems that THIS, not the invention per se, was the reason that Lowey ultimately got the credit.

^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat regret raising the point of the validity of Press' patent claim. That isn't really the point of this discussion. The point here is that, whether or not Press' claims are valid, there is not enough significant coverage of the event to rate a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Drsjpdc. The mere fact that Press’ was the first US patent to address this critical use of time release, and thus was the basis for all further patents using any other systems for control of medication dosages over specific amounts of time, makes it notable per se, and therefore the news coverage of that “event” should be irrelevant. Waynethegoblin (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the proposition that this patent "was the first US patent to address this critical use of time release" etc. is not supported by any third-party coverage and constitutes original research. There is not even primary source reference to support this proposition (and even were there, such a proposition is sufficiently controversial that primary sources would not be sufficient for Wikipedia's standards). Moreover, this proposition is specifically contested, with citations to reliable sources provided. So we have a presumption that it is wrong until and unless authority for it can be identified in reliable sources.

Again, this is why Wikipedia is a bad place for original claims. ^Bongo_matic 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo. And just when we started to get along...tsk, tsk... :) I guess you didn't read my analysis of the patents above... I quoted the exact lines which show conclusively that Consolazio's patent really had NOTHING to do with time release of a specific dosage of medication for that purpose. And how and where it states that Press' was for the process, not for a specific product. I can't imagine that citing the US Government's Patent Office is not in and of itself a valid reference, as THEY had to review this and don't just give patents to whomever, for whatever. That is not original research, and it certainly a "reliable source". I was almost ready to give up this fight, until I actually read the two patents. Consolazio clearly had no idea to use his "matrix" to dose medications in specific amounts for treatment of specific conditions... Press was certainly the first to do that.

^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis may be correct. This is not the place for analysis that requires knowledge of the subject to evaluate. This is a place to cite sources that state the claims made in the article. That is the definition of what is not original research.

And by the way, the US patent office regularly issues patents that would not be enforceable upon actual litigation—just like us here, they are not actually experts on every single technology. The only thing the patent can be used to cite is that X was issued a patent for Y—not even X was issued the first patent for Y—that is original research unless it is backed up by reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 05:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a regular guy who led a regular life and did something like all of us regular people, but nothing noteworthy. The article reads like a vanity article because, as for most regular people, not much has been published about him or by him. Nothing evil going on here, just a regular guy and a regular deletion. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right; the man literally changes the way medication is delivered for all time, as important as Jenner's vaccination method, and its proven with the first process patent issued by the US Government, and we are forgetting him and thereby at least tacitly SUPPORTING the plagiarist of his work, because the plagiarist got all the media? That's the bottom line. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, if Howard Press made the mark that Jenner made, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Wikipedia is a poor but occasionally used device to correct perceived injustices (see Nobel Prize controversies, which is filled with both tragic as well as whiney tales). My sense is that Wikipedia is not the right place to address those slights. This person lived a fairly routine business life: people invent stuff, people patent, people steal ideas, people start companies, people are convinced that their contributions are notable ... But those are just my views. On a more official Wikipedia level, the case for notability seems to completely lack verifiability. I searched the Journal of Controlled Release for "Howard Press" and got no hits. On a gentler note, there is no rush: the drug delivery world is highly sophisticated and organized, and if there was a particularly notable contribution, it is likely to get picked up, e.g. a review entitled "Contributions of Howard Press." Academicians are very good at uncovering original discoverers of important technologies because discovering discoverers is a form of scholarship. But as Bongomatic pointed out above, Wikipedia is an inappropriate forum for such research.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I checked Ullmann's Encyclopedia on controlled release (Paul Zanowiak “Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms” Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 2002, Wiley-VCH. doi:10.1002/14356007.a19_241). The review does not mention Press, but there is no clearcut history section. The 61 references in this review do not include mention of Press. It does cite this source for background: “Sustained- and Controlled-Release Drug Delivery Systems” in G. S. Banker, C. T. Rhodes (eds.): Modern Pharmaceutics, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York 1990. Perhaps this source, which I dont have access to, would describe Press's contributions. I tried to find him mentioned anywhere aside from here - still nothing.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is sourced and relevant to the sustained release article (which, by the way, is not in good shape) and then delete the rest. It seems a BLP1E,and an unsourced one. As much as I am usually reluctant to delete usually, the lack of sources (no gnews,no gbooks as far as I can find) about this person unfortunately leaves little options. There is a claim for notability for sure, but the relevant information can be merged in the invention article, at least until more sources come out. It could be a good idea to userfy the article to the creator user page or to incubate it, anyway. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the claims made in the article lead section are backed up by sources, he's notable and shouldn't be deleted. If they're not, delete those claims and then bring it back to AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - Bongomatic has visited my talk page to politely ask me to further explain my keep argument. What I'm saying is that, in my view, if he genuinely has invented "a process for time release or sustained release medication", that would arguably be "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:ANYBIO criterion 2. Having asserted that notability and provided a source for it, it's open to present contrary viewpoints on the article but not appropriate to debate it by means of a proposed deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Thanks for your clarification. I disagree with this approach in a couple of ways:

The suggestion that inventing "a process for time release or sustained release medication" is inherently a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring record is false. Being "widely recognized" requires "wide recognition", which this article doesn't demonstrate—in fact, it demonstrates the opposite.
The equation of the AfD process with the proposed deletion process is misleading. This process exists for editors to opine on the validity of a claim of notability, not merely the existence of such a claim (the latter being the criterion for speedy nominations and proposed deletion nominations). The text of article itself need not reflect the consensus opinion on the validity of such a claim for the consensus to emerge and be valid.

^Bongo_matic 07:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact it's a dreadfully written article (again, not an AfD issue) certainly doesn't help. From the debate above and on the talk page, it seems to be agreed that (1) he filed a patent, (2) it was similar or the same as Lowey's, and (3) he filed it before Lowey. That's sufficient to found a claim that he did, in fact, beat Lowey to the punch, which would (in my opinion) justify the claim of notability. Probably the article needs to be rewritten so that it reads, "Howard Press is a (whatever) who claims to be the inventor of (x)", and then a considerably more NPOV examination of that claim. But the claim isn't (on the cited sources) obviously provable as false, and is very significant if true. The encyclopaedia is better served by a detailed consideration of that claim on the article page, citing sources for each viewpoint, than it is by a deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This form of argument is tantamount to original research itself. DustFormsWords says that the claimed invention, if true, imputes notability on its inventor. In other words, this editor's own view is substituted for "wide recognition". ^Bongo_matic 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not my intention. We have wide, well-sourced notability for Lowey's invention, we have notability for the author of that invention, thought to be Lowey. If the author of the invention is, in fact, Press rather than Lowey, the existing sources would attest to his notability. But look, I'm not saying that Press is the inventor - I'm just saying that I've not had anything drawn to my attention that, to reasonable minds, would irrefutably settle the claim that he is. And that debate is capable of occurring on the article page, so it should. I've made my argument; those against (including Bongomatic) have intelligently and politely made theirs. I'm not much invested and I'm content for the closing admin to weigh up those arguments that have been put and make the call. Thanks for the intriguing debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on those wishing to keep the article to provide sources that establish Press's notability. This debate belongs at AfD, not on the talk page. The lack of reliable sources that discuss this individual or his purported invention means that this article cannot pass Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article contains many sources, including this article from The New York Times, but the majority of them (including the NYT article) don't even mention Howard Press.
The article is primarily composed of original research. If any parts of the article were useful, I would recommend a merge to sustained release per Cyclopia, but the lack of sources that discuss Howard Press being the "the first to develop a process for time release or sustained release medication" means that this assertion is original research. The rest of the sources and assertions in the article also violate Wikipedia:Synthesis and Wikipedia:Original research. Original research does not belong on Wikipedia, so this should be deleted. Incubation would be helpful if this article could be improved, but due to the lack of sources, I strongly doubt that this is possible.
Howard Press fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO because there are no sources that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, and there are no sources that verify the claim that his patent contributed much to his academic field. If he did indeed contribute much to his field, I would expect some sources on Google Scholar; however, there are none.
My own searches for sources on Google News Archive (1, 2, and 3) and Google Books (1, 2, and 3) return no valid sources that could be used to construct a biography, so I conclude that Howard Press is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my colleagues are conveniently discounting the fact that the US Patent Office itself should be a significant source, for the following issues:

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. In many countries, certain subject areas are excluded from patents, such as business methods and mental acts. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1]

Unless we can simply assume that the US Government failed to do their job here, or that the US Patent Office simply issues patents willy-nilly to whomever files first, and your argument is that they issued a process patent (which I would argue is ITSELF synthesis) to someone who was not the FIRST, then QED, per se, "Notability".

What Lowey's later patent was for; regardless of what method he used to adhere his stuff to the stomach wall, was a per se violation of Press' patent. Read it. Press' application was careful to include ANY method or substance by which a medicament could be dispensed over time. Not limited to Cellulose nitrate; thus INCLUDED Ethyl cellulose. This was one of the reasons that Press sued Forrest Laboratories.

Oh, and by the way, in Google Scholar, one of the first listings is Press' patent, and then they list that there were at least six other patents later which cited Press' prior art in their won applications. So, it should be clear that Press' existence WAS noted by honest inventors coming later. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The fact that the US Patent Office issued a patent is verifiable. However, the fact that US Patent Office issued a patent to Press does not support any notability. DigitalC (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concurring comment: The U.S. Patent office issues "hundreds of thousands" of patents annually. [[59]]. Getting a patent is a helpful but insufficient basis for notability, otherwise millions of people are also notable, and this analysis does not include patents in other countries. So in the same spirit that a badly written article is no grounds for AfD, merely having a patent is no grounds for opposing an AfD. My understanding is that patent lawyers, unlike Wikipedia editors, are required to acknowledge any hint of "prior art," (i.e. patents and publications), regardless of notability. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the article certainly has claims to notability, there are no references to build an article around. The only substantial reference is the patent. Where are the references that mention Press, and the importance of his discovery? If the claims are true, and enough original research could be built, it could probably be published in a pharmaceutical journal. However, until something is published elsewhere, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. DigitalC (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another editor added additional information about Press. While if the article is kept, this information is certainly pertinent, it—alone or in combination with the other verifiable information in the article—doesn't establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DigitalC. It is such a mess and a POV/troll magnet. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, And Continue To Improve The Article: I am not in favor of deletionism and feel that the subject, whether a minor or major criminal historically, did play a role in the development of sustained release medication. I have done considerable factual research on the topic thus far, and find his life fascinating. His whole life story should be known, including the kind of person he really was. Furthermore, we are still learning more every day, so as the article is in great flux, let us make the decision to hold off on deleting it but rather keep it with as many factual additions as possible. For example, it would be helpful if the author, Drsjpdc, who has "had many, many personal interviews with Mr. Press during his lifetime" would further elaborate on the subject's criminal past. That aspect of his life is the most compelling, verifiable, and incontrovertible.--Rikatazz (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) — Rikatazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rikatazz, your commentary actually demonstrates why the article must be deleted. You have identified that this article is solely the product of original research. Contrary to your desired approach, the article should be deleted, and if and when the subject's life has been described in independent reliable sources, then a Wikipedia article on him could meet the policies and guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further to my existing keep vote, the new material added to the article that asserts a course of well-documented and continuing criminal conduct is a separate, independent ground of notability, that by itself satisfieds WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new material does not establish notability. None of the additional sources mention Howard Press; those sources only mention "General Pharmacal" (see this one) (ref #20) as an example. Again, the new paragraph is composed of original research because none of the sources even mention Howard Press. WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia, is not met, so this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard is correct—these arguments about notability are canards. The problems with this article are not limited to notability guidelines, but go straight to the core policies of verifiability and no original research. These have not been addressed by any of the commentators opining "keep". ^Bongo_matic 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we're on the same page, Cunard and Bongomatic; the new material is quite extensively sourced not only to Newsweek and the New York Times but also to the transcripts of the criminal prosecutions, which mention Press specifically as the accused. They're the most reliable, independent sources you can get and they attest to his conviction for a series of very serious offences over a sustained length of time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek source does not mention Press, while the New York Times article is inaccessible. Even if the NYT article, titled Six Drug Men Indicted, Charged with Counterfeiting Trademarks on Pills, mentioned Press, this would still not establish notability. There is no indication that Press passes Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. He fails #1 because he is not notable for anything besides the crime. He fails #2 because he is not "a renowned world figure"; if he were, there would be reliable sources about him. He fails #3 because the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is not unusual or noteworthy; if it were noteworthy, there would be reliable sources that discuss its uniqueness. Because that paragraph and the rest of the article relies on original research, there is no way to determine if the information is inaccurate. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith for the offline sources. (Given it's an event from 1960 I'm not expecting online sources to exist.) The Newsweek article refers to a company which Press provably had control of. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators is presented as an exception to WP:BLP1E, which doesn't apply here because it's not a single event, it's a sustained course of conduct including multiple events and thus inappropriate to create an article about the event which Press can be merged to. He meets the general notability criteria in relation to the prosecutions, which is to say coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press is not mentioned in the NYT articles. ^Bongo_matic 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "Joseph O. Haff, "Bogus Pills Laid to 3 in Hoboken," The New York Times, August 6, 1960"? If you're prepared to say that you've gone to archives somewhere and checked it out, and it doesn't contain mention of him, I'll take that in good faith. But given we have another article verifiaby suggesting a police action on that day in that area involving Press' company, I'd otherwise assume the article listed does indeed mention Press or his company. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. He appears to be mentioned in that one, but not in the other NYT article. ^Bongo_matic 05:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the NY Times articles:

1) In the "Bogus Pills Laid to Three in Hoboken" article, 4th & 5th paragraphs:

Arrest of Executives. William Etis, 29 years old, of 4010 Saxon Avenue, the Bronx general manager of the plant, was arrested in the June 27 raid. On the following day Howard A. Press, 37, of 54 Tenafly Road, Tenafly, N.J., the concern's president, and Isidore Rutstein, 78, of 70 Normal Place, Tenafly, said to be Press' partner, were taken into custody.

2) In the "6 Drug Men Indicted" article, 3rd paragraph:

The men indicted include Howard Press, 37 year-old-president of the company, which was raided by state authorities last June 27; Isidor Rutstein, 76, and William Etis, 29, all company officers; Paul Chosid of the Bronx, N.Y., and Herman Witleshoser of Yonkers, and Leonard Mirrof of the Bronx.

You will note that Howard A. Press of 54 Tenafly Road, Teaneck, NJ is the same address given on Press's patent.

Cunard, you are not correct at all; these sources and plenty others (including materials from the FDA Reporter which are accessible online) all describe a notorious drug counterfeiting ring in New Jersey in the 1960s where Press was the kingpin. DustFormWords is absolutely correct that the new material is perhaps the most extensively researched and reliable information we have on this topic.--Rikatazz (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant, Manchester

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

There appears to be little of notability about this church. A discussion at WT:GM appears to reveal there may be a consensus to delete Pit-yacker (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big Way (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have suggested merging it with the areawhere it is, but this is difficult for a congregation without a building and meeting in a variety of places, nor is it linked to any particular university, so that it cannot be treated as a university club. Accordingly I find it hard to see what to suggest. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing to merge. NW (Talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Ascension, Hulme

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

There appears to be little of notability about this church. A discussion at WT:GM appears to reveal there may be a consensus to delete Pit-yacker (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible CSD G11, but regardless, fails WP:NOTABLE Nezzadar (speak) 21:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big Way (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hulme. This is usually the best solution for local facilities, such as primary schools, churches, etc. The article should be pruned of service times (which may change) and are better provided for by having a link to the subject's website. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrijana Dejanović

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

Fails WP:ENT. Run-of-the-mill model. Not even a magazine cover. What little importance the article claims can only be sourced to a user-submitted Fashion Model Directory profile. Models.com and NYMag (two popular modeling resources) return no results on her. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsure at the moment, subject appears to have some coverage, easily found through a Google search however so far does not meet WP:ANYBIO, might do however if the claim "She placed third in the Ford "Supermodel of the World" contest and obtained a US$ 7,500 contract but decided to finish her education first." can be sourced. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pilat (Pilot)

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

It is an autobiography, the original editor's name is 'thatmike' who also contributed the image, which he said was his own work. No 3rd party sources. Tim1357 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is how I respond, wiki confuses me a bit. I was notified this page was up for deletion. This pages was originally created by a listener of our program. I added the image to the page because it was blank and quite frankly I was flattered. Since then various listeners have been working together to create the information on this page by their knowledge from listening to the show and by asking me questions thru email. I have made some edits on this page when I have saw information that wasn't exactly true. Please let me know what I need to do to keep this page on Wikipedia because these guys and gals put a lot of work into it. Thank you very much.thamike (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.139.50 (talk) [reply]
- The best thing you could do to have this page kept would be to find some independent sources. Since you are an Internet radio personality, if there is discussion of you in reliable independent sources, that discussion is probably available on the Internet. If you can find some links to independent sources which indicate that you are notable, you can identify them here in this discussion, or insert them into the article at appropriate places (to back up the facts in the article). See here for how to insert a link into an article. (There are more complex referencing methods also used on Wikipedia, but at this point we are mostly concerned with establishing that the sources exist; they can be formatted later.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to post them here later tonite or tomorrow. I'm am away this afternoon but will work on this asap. I really appreciate your help and understanding. Thank you very much.thamike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.147.4 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCE LINKS

Mediocre Show Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mediocre_Show

Press Release About Pilat From ReadingPA.gov - http://www.readingpa.gov/mayor_press_releases_73109.asp

Press Release Of Awful Show On Cringe Humor - http://www.prlog.org/10063513-something-awful-coming-to-cringe-humor-radio.html

Press Release Of Awful Show On Cringe Humor - http://www.1888pressrelease.com/cringe-humor-radio-11370-company-pr.html

Awful Show Remembers George Carlin - http://eviljwinter.wordpress.com/category/the-awful-show/

Press Release Of Mediocre Show On Cringe Humor - http://www.prlog.org/10034344-cringe-humor-joining-forces-with-mediocre-nation-and-comical-radio.html

Mediocre Show In Maxim Magazine - http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128003

CityWeekly.net Article About Mediocre Show - http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-1551-the-mediocre-show.html

CoolPodcasts Write Up About Awful Show - http://coolpodcasts.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/the-awful-show

Please let me know if this is enough and what I need to do next. Thank you!thamike 3:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.139.50 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the sources provided by User:thamike. Here are my comments:

Mediocre Show Wiki -- Wikipedia itself does not qualify as a reliable source.
Press Release About Pilat From ReadingPA.gov -- Not sure what to make of this.
Press Release Of Awful Show On Cringe Humor -- Press releases from sources affiliated with the subject are not independent sources.
Press Release Of Awful Show On Cringe Humor -- See above.
Awful Show Remembers George Carlin -- Appears to be a reprint of a blog entry.
Press Release Of Mediocre Show On Cringe Humor -- See above.
Mediocre Show In Maxim Magazine -- Although this is not the original source, I assume good faith that this is an actual reprint of a Maxim article. However, it doesn't actually mention Mike, just two of the other hosts of his show.
CityWeekly.net Article About Mediocre Show -- Also does not mention Mike.
CoolPodcasts Write Up About Awful Show -- A two-paragraph blog entry.

So I don't think we can take into account any of these sources other than Press Release About Pilat From ReadingPA.gov, Awful Show Remembers George Carlin, and CoolPodcasts Write Up About Awful Show. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided do not appear to be enough to establish notability yet. If notability is established later, the article can be re-created at that time (preferably using a single main name for the subject, whatever he is best known as). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Macyshon

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [60][61][62][63] ƒ(Δ)² 17:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Knight

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [64][65][66][67] ƒ(Δ)² 17:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No notability here. Lara 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia MacMillan

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [68][69][70][71] ƒ(Δ)² 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email on camera^(t) 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Benefits Group

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

Boring spam (the worst kind). Neither of the two linked articles talk about Integrated Benefits Group. And anyway, what's "the recent economy"? Do we mean the late-2000s recession? Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Non notable. Plenty of refs, all useless. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claim to notability and the internet doesn't seem to know anything about these guys apart from their own web presence. Ben Kidwell (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gregson

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

Seems to be quite unknown. I could not find anything about "Robert Gregson" Egremonts, despite the article's claim of notoriety. The very model of a minor general (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has two paintings on show in Bold st Liverpool. One is a portrait of Howard Marks (mr Nice) the other of Bob Marley. His Concrete work can be seen in the recently completed garden in the Birkenhead YMCA and a vast collage is on permanent display in Wheatland rd Wallasey.
He is a genuine Wirral based artist that deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiewasp (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note: moved this comment by article creator, who overwrote the nom.)

Comment If there are/were any reviews about his work in newspapers, please add references to the article.--The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local artist with minimal independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N and WP:RS.. South Bay (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Josh Wagner. Redirecting on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of the Imagination of Periphery Stowe

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

Unsourced. A Google search reveals no coverage (such as reviews) in reliable sources, which means that the subject fails WP:N. Sandstein 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Josh Wagner, can't see any sign that this satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books) and justifies a standalone article. --Stormie (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Robinson

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

This article is an autobiography of an appearantly non-notable person. The subject might be notable, but the references used are trivial mentions, and a google review did not find him to be among the first few pages of results, except for this article. Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:AUTO, NN. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cynof Gavuf 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2478182.pdf [Patent No. 2478182]

[1] ttp://www.freepatentsonline.com/2478182.pdf [Patent No. 2478182]

[1]