Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 7

< 6 October	8 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Pack (2point4 Children)

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep, depending on the importance of the show, which I cannot really judge. We normally merge episodes into either combination articles or episode lists in the main article, not delete them. I notice this was originally listed by the nom for speedy A7, although it clearly does not fall into that speedy category--not being a"real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's to merge. The summaries are either copy/pastes of List of 2point4 children episodes or very close to what's there. The episodes don't appear notable enough for individual articles as there doesn't seem to be any independent coverage of the subject, but that may be due to the fact that they aired at a pre-internet date. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All copyright infringement. Synopsis section is copy from Tv.com.--Bmrwl (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And story text of List of 2point4 children episodes too.--Bmrwl (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're absolutely incorrect about the summaries in List of 2point4 children episodes being copy violation. I wrote them from scratch over a period of months. I can undelete my userpage to prove it if it's necessary, but I don't like being accused of plagarism. If anything, someone has copied them onto TV.com without the proper attribution. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspin

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

Contested prod. Freeware with no assertion of notability. The article states that the software is still very new, and the only reference provided is a Youtube video - which qualifies as a primary source. Given that there are no secondary sources available, it will have to be a delete for the time being. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - No assertion of notability, even claims that the software is new, unsourced, and the external link for the "official site" is a site about some website monitoring company. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CSD says nothing about software. Intelligentsium^review 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I confused the individual/company notability CSD criteria with this. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable product, no reliable sources. Intelligentsium^review 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. I would echo Intelligentsium here, CSD does not provide for the deletion of this sort of article. Crafty (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE, I am working on this. please see my reference I just added!!! Help me out, I am new to this! :) Firefoxian (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I admire your moxie, kid. I don't see how the xgaming reference establishes notability nor am I convinced it's a reliable source. Crafty (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ANYWAY. I am just learning from your responses. You could say it's judgement by trial and error. So thanks for feedback. Now I am going to restudy and try for better refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take 3! Quick everybody look! These seem like valuable references to me. Question:some sites are forum sites only, no main pages; so can they be used as references here when they post as news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of them are forums. The third one is a press release. Our guidelines on reliable sources excludes those, given that they are sites that accept input from anyone. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how press releases are not valid. Wouldn't that be saying that all news organizations do not have valid information? Or are you indicating that this maybe just released information by the people who created it? Anyway, I didn't see anything on this in the pages I have been referred to and I did a text search. I feel a little ignored, like I am getting robotic responses, when I just need direction. This is OBVIOUSLY a valid piece of software as ANYONE can see. Literally, you can SEE this on youtube. This is what you referred me to: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." So now I have added some more youtube videos. Sorry if I sound rude. Firefoxian (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are written by the subject. By that virtue alone they are not valid sources to establish notability. Youtube videos are also published by the subject. If not, they should be flagged as possible copyright infringement, and you should link, instead, to the source that was infringed on.

What you need is the kind of reference that the creators of Hyperspin cannot change or edit without involving their attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that notability (which is the make-or-break inclusion criterion in Wikipedia) is not the same thing as existence (which is usually not a criterion, we have plenty of articles on notable hoaxes). You have asserted only the latter. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Copyright infringement? Have you even looked at my article? This is not copyrighted. Again with the robotics. Anyway, you are wasting my time, because I asked for HELP. It is now apparent to me that your job is only to stop things that don't "qualify". I am no longer interested in this conversation since you cannot actually be constructive, but instead talk about RED TAPE. I'll get help elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say I'm accusing you of copyright infringement, that means you must read my argument again. I haven't said anything that comes even remotely close to that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this article contained only content based on verifiable, reliable sources, it would be a blank page. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and not verifiable.--camr ^nag 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the spider king

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

Delete. Fails WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete--book won't be released for another month. Authors Wayne Thomas Batson and Christopher Hopper not at the level where everything they write can be assumed to be notable -- see WorldCat for Batson and for Hopper. Interesting blog post by the author on Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; unreleased books are not normally notable. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps after the book is released; at least at that point its potential notability may be easier to establish. Vincent Valentine 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with a nod to WP:BEFORE. Disambiguation is a separate matter which can and should be dealt with through regular editing. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMedicine

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

Disputed PROD. Effectively unreferenced, as the refs are not about the topic. Does not meet the general notability guidelines, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source about the subject is a primary source, hence the article is not verifiable. The references cited are not in relation to the organization. Per WP:ORG Chzz ► 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero proper sourcing, fails notability, and the article completely reads like an advertisement. _{(On another note, the article creator could have been more constructive when denying the prod other than "please propose it at AfD rather than the abbreviated process", which sounds to me like a WP:OWN issue, but that's beside the point.)}
GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If one clicks on the links listed on the "Find sources" line above, it should be easy to evaluate the statements "no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "fails notability". --
Arcadian (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, no. All I see is a bunch of emedicine.com web page links. The term is also far too generic for notability to be accurately determined through Google. It's just the word "medicine" with an extra e added to it is all.
  GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two more sources added in addition to the three journal articles that mention it. Well respected and and widely used apparently. Google books has more also, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] not including the ones that just refer to it as a source. I would say that even if the majority of the mentions are brief, collectively they indicate it's notable.
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the citations above are fully enough to show notability. They could have been found by the nominator too. I fail to see what is wrong with removing a prod and requesting an AfD--any editor here has that right--and in this case it's very much a good thing that they exercised it.
DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, note that there are currently wikipedia pages for this topic in 19 other languages. That may be a record for AfD. --
Arcadian (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should find-out if these other language pages are specifically about eMedicine.com or more generically about eMedicine. (see my comment below proposing to move current page to eMedicine.com and redefining current page as introduction to eMedicine / disambiguation page.)
  Enquire (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move and Create Disambiguation Page eMedicine.com is a notable on-line medical information resource acquired by WebMD in January 2006 WebMD Buys eMedicine: $25.5M. However, eMedicine is also understood to generically refer to electronic medicine in the same way eMail refers to electronic mail. I therefore move that the current page be moved to eMedicine.com and the current page become either a disambiguation page and/or a general introduction to electronic medicine with links to more detailed Wiki pages. In terms of on-line medical information resources, eMedicine.com should (of course) be included a list, but also include other on-line medical web resources such as WebMD, MedicineNet, Medscape, RxList, eMedicineHealth, MedHelp, iMedix, etc.. Other links should include (amongst others): Telemedicine, Virtual surgery, Computer assisted surgery, CyberKnife, etc.. Also, I noted that at least one of the External Links (EL) was generic and not specific to eMedicine.com and should probably kept on the disambiguation page or on a related page about the generic sub-topic (with links to the more specific topics). Of course if this is done, the links to the other 19 language pages should be also moved (or not) depending on whether they relate to the company eMedicine.com or more generically to the emerging field of electronic medicine.
Enquire (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Somos

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

Disputed PROD, removed with comment '(remove prod. Noted by Mathworld. Should be AfDd.)'. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so seems to fail WP:GNG, and WP:BIO, WP:PROF Chzz ► 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into an (as-yet-nonexistent, but easily stubbed out) article on Somos sequences, which are a notable topic in mathematics (see Google scholar search results) even though Somos himself seems hard to find sufficient sourcing about. This seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E and redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since started an article on Somos sequences. It's pretty bare-bones so far but at least contains some of the basic facts and a few references. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect sounds like a good idea. I removed the prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure that a redirect to Somos sequence would be appropriate, because Somos also appears to be notable for Somos' quadratic recurrence constant. Or (I don't feel inclined at the moment to get my head around this) are these two aspects of the same thing? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added Somos' quadratic recurrence constant to the article. I remember Somos speaking at the MIT combinatorics seminar. But probably that in itself is not evidence of "notability". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should tread carefully here, as this seems to be a rather unusual case. Article and supporting info suggest he's not a professional mathematician. Nevertheless, there appear to be at least 2 significant results named after him. This certainly does imply some amount of notability, but I don't feel knowledgeable enough about these areas at the moment to render an opinion on whether it is sufficient for our purposes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I was in the same quandary as Agricola44 regarding this. The subject has a grand total of 18 citations on HPoP, with an h-index of 2. Yet, the term “Somos sequence” has 329 citations and an h-index of 11, also on HPoP. And I wouldn’t be surprised if different searches for ideas by the subject would uncover many more hits. In other words, the idea (or ideas) lives on and is cited, but not with reference to its originator or the original article. I guess some great mathematicians who have WP articles (e.g., Niels Henrik Abel, admittedly from another era) have low citations and h-indexes, but when one looks at citations to their ideas, they are much, much higher. Bottom line: I think the subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), although in an unorthodox way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "HPoP" redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and something tells me that's not what you mean, and neither WP:PROF nor Google is shedding any light. Could you disabbreviate this? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another post on the academic delsort page clears up the mystery of HPoP:[6] See [7].John Z (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks John Z.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In view of developments I change to Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, since things named after him seem to get attention from his colleagues. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm not sure that getting something named for him should be the criterion; not everything gets named after someone who actually had anything to do with inventing it. But if the person did invent something which is mentioned in a secondary source it seems to me that that would qualify as "significant impact" to satisfy WP:PROF. I would be happier there were more secondary sources other than MathWorld cited though. I do have an issue with the lack of biographical material in the article however. No date and place of birth, nothing about where he got his degree, etc. To me, notable subject or not, you should at least have some basic facts before creating an article, otherwise you might as well just put the name on the requested articles list. But presumably that info can be found and added to the article so it's a fixable issue and shouldn't be deleted for that reason.--RDBury (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone verified that the original creator of this article is in fact, as it appears, Doron Zeilberger? Should we count that as another "keep" vote? It appears to be Zeilberger's only Wikipedia edit, and somewhat competently done. He may be a total newbie among Wikipedians, but he is a respected mathematician. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent Prof. Zeilberger an email asking if he'd like to comment here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough to have something like that named after him. Inventing a major mathematical equation is notable work. There are 82 results in Google scholar search [8] and some of that looks notable. Dream Focus 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. One of the references has been added , and there is plenty of scope for the article to grow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Denizard

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

This fellow's biggest claim to fame is being Olga Tañón's husband. Does not merit his own article. JaGa^talk 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited through blood or marriage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - nowhere near notable enough for even his own stub. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GlassCobra 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partner source

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

Term appears to be made up in a day; no reliable sources given or found to establish term, aside from the resume coatrack it was used for at one time. tedder (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a neologism. I'll tag it accordingly. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism -Drdisque (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism Miami33139 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Fuhrman

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

~~Delete per WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy Keep. She's the President of Teacher's College, a semi-autonomous prt of Columbia University, which is enough significance to meet WP PROF. And her notable role in the profession is shown by her publication record, including multiple widely-held books . All the article needs is expansion and referencing. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I consider the WP:PROF #6 argument to be completely convincing, but she's also been named one of New York's 100 most influential women in a magazine article (now included), so I think there's a clear pass of WP:BIO more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does president of the National Academy of Education also count for WP:PROF #6 (president of an important society) or #7 (an important consulting role on national primary and secondary school education issues)? Maybe both. And why is National Academy of Education a redlink? In any case this is well into speedy keep territory. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for above good reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep for above good reasons. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Salamon

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

Delete per WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His top paper, "Neural network ensembles", has 1359 citations in Google scholar, and he has four other publications with over 100 citations each. That amounts to a clear pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Would the prodder care to elaborate on the reasons for his prod; they do not seem at all clear to me? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). In addition to what David Eppstein said, the subject has a total of over 3,300 citations on HPoP, and an h-index of 24.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you tell us what HPoP is? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's Harzing's PoP citation analysis software. It uses Google Scholar. The "PoP" stands for "publish or perish".--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found it here: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm Unfortunately there isn't a Mac version. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to List of Pokémon (161–180)#Pichu. I've gone ahead and done this. (non-admin closure) GlassCobra 14:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notched-Ear Pichu

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

Non-notable pokemon I42 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... two appearances, no plot arcs, etc. = not notable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to List of Pokémon (161–180)#Pichu. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon (161–180)#Pichu as a non-notable event Pokemon version of a Pokemon who does not even have its own article. talking birds 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Caste

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

On the face of it, fails WP:PROF and his listed publications are mostly journal articles. Google Scholar has only 16 entries which fail to show the required level of academic influence. There is nothing here to take this person out of the average and into the exceptional that we require for inclusion here. Rodhull andemu 19:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But when you dig deeper, you will find that Nicholas Caste is a wonderfully sexy man-beast, who is much more important than all of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, lack of sources to affirm notability, despite the above glowing commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of Delete - Dr. Caste is an obvious crusader against Nazis and the like, and once beheaded a Nazi on his front stoop as a warning to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what Else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is sufficent reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just didn't add anything, you repeated. So why say anything at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just corrected the article according to his official CV linked to there as a reference . He's a lecturer ,not a professor. And as is obvious anyway from the titles, that's a list of publications, not books. I was rather puzzled at such a minimal publication record for a full professor at a good university. Clearly not yet notable. The article has been subject to a good deal of foolish vandalism, but the erroneous information was there from the start, in the edit by User:Riverswillflow. I wonder a little at the anon here, who made such edits as [9] (if it's the same individual using that account). Considering the circumstances, I'd suggest a quick deletion, possibly by SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that, it's not WP:CSD#A7-able, because it asserts WP:notability and taking into account the recent history I was pretty sure a WP:PROD would be contested. Hence this AfD. Rodhull andemu 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said SNOW, not Speedy. I know the difference, and I understand CSD A7. (the material added since my comment reinforces my view that this should be quickly removed) DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he definitely is a professor and if you say otherwise you obviously do not know what you are talking about. He is an avid Nazi hater and to remove that from his wikipedia is simply unamerican. Are you a Nazi sympathizer? Seriously though, he is one of the best Professors we have had and he knows about all the crazy stuff we put on here, you should just let us have fun with it. Wikipedia isn't taken seriously anyways so why does it matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopo06 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't read our standards for inclusion for academics; your argumentum ad correctum politicem is misguided. If you really think that Wikipedia is intended for "fun", then I really doubt your ability to even matriculate into higher education, although you claim to have done so. You might possibly graduate, but only just, and you should be able to torment youself in later years, when you realise that if you'd taken your studies a tad more seriously, you might have ended up with a better life. But that is your decision, and yours alone. Youthful indiscretions may be forgiveable, but if you carry them forward into areas where they are inappropriate, you might find that the result is not that which you intended. Time to get wise, perhaps. Rodhull andemu 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those who successfully matriculate into higher education know that Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously and that it is useless. You know, with all those big words, you think you'd be able to actually spell yourself and forgivable correctly. We take our studies seriously, what we don't take seriously is people like you. Also, you don't "get wise" as it is not a tangible thing, rather, you become wise.

Unwise to play the academic games with me; "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. Better to quit while you're behind, or in other words, "stop digging when you're in a hole". Rodhull andemu 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it must be very wise, we aren't taking you very seriously, but it seems I've struck a nerve. I've accomplished my purpose. Too bad you don't know what yours is. Basically that's all I want. To play a game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — 174.96.54.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My purpose is writing an encyclopedia. But you admit to being a disruptive WP:Troll. Why should you not be blocked from editing here? Rodhull andemu 01:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Rod, I want to play a game. Though, I prefer Sociopath. It has a much better ring to it, wouldn't you say Rod? You know, there's two types of people on wikipedia. There's you, the one who takes Wikipedia seriously, who thinks he is "writing an encyclopedia" when all he's doing is frittering his time away on something that wont mean anything in the end. Then there's us, the Legion. We may well be frittering our time away, but not really. We're the reason Wikipedia cant be used in true academic pursuits. Then again, we're your purpose. Without us, you'd have nothing to do but sit there, attempting to look academic. You don't appreciate your life Rod, because you think what you're doing is important, when it isn't. I want to play a game. The rules are simple. You leave Wikipedia and don't come back. You will See as I See. You write travel the world, write some books, save a fair maiden and make her your own, or perhaps just explore the unknown and enjoy your life. You leave this behind forever. When you've done that, I want to to evaluate what really made you whole. What made you alive. What helped you appreciate your life. I promise it wont be this. Because right now, you are dead. Dead inside with no one but us, the Sociopaths. If you fail my test, you will always be dead, and you will always wonder what could have been.

Life or Death Rod, make your choice. Let the game begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.54.180 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete despite all the filibustering above. There's no evidence of academic impact such as highly cited publications, that would pass WP:PROF #1 nor any of the other WP:PROF criteria, and no evidence of non-academic notability e.g. through news articles mentioning him. "Working on" a presidential campaign does not convey notability either. Oh, and Rodhullandemu: please don't feed the trolls. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, troll promoted article? Yeah get out. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we block these IPs for nonconstructive posting? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails everything, and I think SNOW would be appropriate as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Prof #1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, time to SNOW delete? Salih (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travel For Care

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by a blocked WP:SPA (Travelforcare (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "Travel For Care".

This is one Part of a broader history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -WPSPAM Item

Has a 2 links but they seem merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that the company meets guidelines for corporations - trivial references, no substantial coverage outside of its own sphere. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopez

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

Despite some slight WP:RS refs, I'm not seeing any particular notability in her career. Does anyone see something I don't? Pigman☿/talk 18:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I see a CV. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morlin

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

Character (not even the main character) in a book that may not exist (not listed at worldcat or amazon). Not speedying as a hoax or vandalism in order to AGF; prod a year ago was contested by article's author without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, one would think more than three Google hits would come up for a search on that book title - probably someone's home project. Delete unless I can write articles on all of *my* characters... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, with no evidence of or even claim of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merlin, Morlin, and Marlin; as was said: wow. Lack of referenced notability, fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Pigman☿/talk 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character of unknown importance in some essentially unknown work of fiction -Drdisque (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presumably unpublished. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per being a blatant and stupid hoax. Why not add my voice to the chorus? Nezzadar (speak) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Skomorokh, barbarian 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike L. Murphy

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

Appears to be a vanity page written by the subject himself. Not referenced properly and fails WP:RS and WP:N on a number of points. IMDB shows he was a senior animator for Weta Digital on Lord of the Rings, but that in and of itself does not automatically equal notability, otherwise we'd have articles on every single member of the crew. Laval (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lone contribution from an SPA, might have been Murphy himself. He created a short film that won first place at the Rhode Island International Film Festival, which may or may not qualify under WP:FILM, although I suspect that it wouldn't in the absence of reviews. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup for a major sandblasting to address style concerns. An aawrd winning director and animator is a decent assertion of notability and is sourcable. But yes... the article needs a shave and a haircut. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. One short film that won an award but was never written about or reviewed in any publication (per WP:RS) doesn't qualify one as being notable. In fact, there doesn't appear to be anything about him written in any reliable sources other than a short snippet in Variety about a film that doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground (and no info on it at IMDB either). Since there are literally no reliable sources to draw information from, it's really a non-issue. Laval (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but the article needs major cleanup for style, format, etc., as noted above. The subject is not really a "director" as most of us would define it, but a visual effects designer, and he has won awards for that. If any animation designer can be notable, then he probably is as notable as one such person can be today. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh, barbarian 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Commment yes - but it desperately needs copyediting and proper footnotes. I'd lean towards keeping if the assertions can be verified. The stub is not in any decent condition yet. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I know, this is a second comment. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cardell Corbet

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

I nominate the biographical information on Canadian artist Christian Cardell Corbet for Deletion on Wikipedia due to recurring and unnecessary vandalism to the biography and subject by removal of worthy citations and harassment by known third parties contributing to Wikipedia. There is no point in maintaining and updating this biography if the subject is constantly being targeted by jealous and slanderous people who claim that the subject himself is actually editing this entry! I hereby kindly request that this biography on Christian Cardell Corbet be deleted at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Drchandler (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the AFD was not transcluded onto the AFD log page until today. tedder (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion on the basis of disruption within the article alone is the completely wrong way to respond to vandalism and disruption. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ / ~~Keep~~ /Unsure Certainly the nominator's reason for requesting deletion is entirely invalid however after reading the article I'm not sure that it meets WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines. Suggest that if there are any references for notability these be added to article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason for deletion given in the nomination. Keep unless the nominator can provide something under our guidelines for deletion that would qualify this for deletion. Having said that, the article needs to be sourced, and it appears that there are at least some sources available to do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Not the right way to respond to vandalism. Just semi-protect the article and move on, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against a redirect being created at the title. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Core (computer)

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

I don't really like dealing with all this nonsense but...

This article is a stub, a stub that is recreated from an article that it links to (multi-core)...

Personally, I think this will just confuse people rather than help (expecally given the utter lack of depth of the article compared to it's sister article multi-core) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not the nominator, I just submitted this AFD page for the IP (above). tedder (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into multi-core or cpu, otherwise get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into magnetic core memory DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it appears to be talking about Multi-core CPUs, not magnetic core memory. tedder (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article only causes confusion, since I, like DJ Clayworth with the call for merger into magnetic core memory, thought it referred to the older style of nonvolatile memory which had thousands of little ferrite donuts with wires running through them. This article is actually just about CPUs, and is an unreferenced essay, and adds nothing much to Central processing unit. Edison (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Edison said above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this reads like the answer to a middle school CS test question. Miami33139 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect to Multi-core. (Note: I processed the nomination, but haven't !voted until now, just pasted in the IP's nomination) tedder (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as utterly wrong, no information there to salvage for merging UltraMagnus^speak 12:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I meant "redirect", not "merge". tedder (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ICC World Twenty20

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

Pure speculation that Pakistan will host this event, and very non-neutral. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this should be deleted. Chzz ► 23:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The latest news is that the PCB are interested in hosting the tournament as are Bangladesh. So there's no confirmed host and no other sourced information. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pakistan references, Keep the rest unless the tournament itself is no longer notable or isn't going to happen. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be left though? The whole article is based on the premise that Pakistan will host the tournament. All that is sourced and relevant to the article (excl. background info) is a quote from the PCB saying they wish to host the tournament, do you really think that is enough to base an article on? --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be similiar to future elections in countries with a Parliament like the UK. You don't know when it's going to happen, but you know it will happen and it's a noteworthy event even before it's clear when it'll happen. It'd be crystal balling if it wasn't likely to happen. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're only looking at the bits of wp:crystalball that you want to, it also states "the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research" So it doesn't matter if this event is likely to happen because there's no sources. The top line of notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and all that can be found is one brief comment, that's not enough. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are too, please see my "vote" above. If there's anything that should be in this article, it should be kept and anything else should be deleted. If that means everything, then that means everything. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I can't tell you if there would be enough available out there for this event right now.Doc Quintana (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your vote and to me "unless the tournament itself is no longer notable or isn't going to happen" is based on reading wp:crystalball but only taking out the part you agree with. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will have to agree to disagree, speculation is the heart of crystalballing, not talking about future facts. Unless it seems unlikely that the tournament will happen, it should be kept, but anything unsourced or speculative should be deleted. If the entire event falls into the latter category, then feel free to construe my opinion as a delete, but it doesn't seem as that is the case and that only the Pakistan related information is crystallball worthy here. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we have different interpretations of wp:crystalball, point 1 is clear to me that future topics need well documented coverage or they shouldn't exist. I still don't understand the argument of removing Pakistan related information as the whole article is Pakistan related, so I ask again what would be left? --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have different interpretation of what this event is. I'm looking at the all time series of these events while I think you're looking at this event in particular. Pakistan is inconsequential to the equation. If it's going to happen and it's notable, that's enough once there's sourceable material. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this event happens, yes it will be notable, but currently there's no coverage so I don't see how an article can exist. In the same way wp:crystalball says 2020 U.S. presidential election is not an appropriate topic. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the next U.S presidential election is. Again, perhaps it's my misunderstanding of this event. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the next ICC World Twenty20 though, there's one in 2010 and 2012. Also I haven't done a search but I'm sure there's a lot more coverage of the next U.S presidential election. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok never mind then, I thought this was the next edition of this event. my apologies. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until the ICC confirm it and then recreate with sources. The 2012 page isn't much better... Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Biat

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

Still no assertion of notability. No improvement since last deletion. Spiderone

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - the only reliable sources I found covering this player indicate that he played in the recent 2009 Francophone Games in Lebanon. Does anyone know if that is a senior international tournament which would confer notability to a participant? I would guess not, but wanted to check. Jogurney (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's for under 20s. Spiderone 06:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage I found on this player relates to a youth tournament (see above) and there is no evidence he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Steve-Ho (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I saw he is down for Morocco Under 23s, now they play Olympic football, can anyone find him having played in the Olympic games? Govvy (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Duggan Death of Jeremiah Duggan

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

This article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because there are not sufficient reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on the subject. The sources available are generally either LaRouche sources or self-published sites, and the available press coverage focuses mostly on LaRouche and tells us little to nothing about Duggan himself; the article appears to be of the variety described at WP:COATRACK. The bottom line is that we can't write a biography of Duggan because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duggan's death made international news. There are at least a dozen major articles on the topic in reliable, mainstream newspapers. There are 31 sources in the article. It has been an ongoing matter, and has seen the involvement of senior government officials in the UK. I should note that Leatherstocking has also AFD'ed a second article related to the LaRouche movement today, Kenneth Kronberg. While a move to a title like "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" might be appropriate, deletion is not. Will Beback talk 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A dozen? I Googled 'death jeremiah duggan'. Top article? WP. The rest of the front page results included not one major news source, and only a link on 'freedomofmind.com' (an 'anti-cult' website) to a BBC video. The second page of Google results, had a Channel 4 video. Even looking at the WP articles, we see several re-workings of the same sources newspaper-wise, and 'recaps' when the inquest was opened (an inquest which is fairly routine for suicide, and in at least two of those articles covered by the newspaper court reporter, rather than, say, an investigative piece). There are 31 sources? If you call the website of a band a source, perhaps, or several that don't even mention Duggan. Achromatic (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has received international press coverage since it happened in 2003, and not just brief mentions, but in-depth coverage, including this long piece in The Washington Post. The story is regularly updated as the family, supported by British and European MPs, makes its way through the appeals process in an effort to re-open the investigation; for example, Hugh Muir gave an update in The Guardian, July 1, 2009. Duggan also has an entry in Cadres: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (2008); see here (though it's possible this simply reflects our coverage). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, these are actually articles about LaRouche, hence the WP:COATRACK problem. Can you cite an example of an article that demonstrates Duggan's individual notability, independent of any link to LaRouche? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are about what happened to him, not about LaRouche as such. Duggan himself is notable only for the circumstances of his death, but that clearly is notable. The article can easily be moved to Death of Jeremiah Duggan. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Leatherstocking is correctly describing WP:COATRACK. Many topics related to LaRouche don't have any notability independent of him, but that doesn't make those articles coatracks. The same can be said of countless articles and topics. How many articles about Michelle Obama fail to mention Barack Obama? That doesn't make her WP biography a COATRACK. Will Beback talk 01:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy, because it doesn't involve any scandal-mongering, If Wikipedia had an article on Jennifer Fitzgerald, which apparently it doesn't, that would be a better analogy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK isn't a reasons for deletion, nor is a violation of NPOV,. Those can be remedied through editing. AfD is to decide whether the topic is inherently notable. Due to the large amount of mainstream coverage of his death, there is clear evidence of notability. Will Beback talk 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article can stand on its own or be merged with Schiller Institute or LaRouche Youth Movement. If kept I agree with SV that the name should be changed to "Death of Jeremiah Duggan," because the article is only partly about him. By the way, I just accidentally edited the article without being logged-in [10]. Lyndon LaRouche articles should make it clear when using Dennis King as a source that he is a LaRouche critic. I learned of this discussion at Wikipedia Review. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I can find slightly more sources that describe King as an "expert" as describe him as a "critic", and one that does both: "Dennis King, a journalist and LaRouche expert who is critical of the group, ..." Both "critic" and "expert" are POV assertions and I think they're better left out unless they're particularly germane. In the case of the text you edited, it isn't a controversial assertion and it could be extensively referenced to other sources. Will Beback talk 08:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To show that Mr. King is a critic, all we need to do is link to his anti-LaRouche website, right? He might be an expert also, that's probably fine to say, since he did write a book a few years ago on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this meets notability criteria. The suicide verdict was reviewed and upheld. There seems to be a huge weight placed on the connection to the LaRouche movement, though his "involvement", such as it was was only a matter of weeks, at most. Take that out, or give it a more appropriate due regard, and you have nothing of note, and in and of itself, I don't think the connection is as strongly warranted as others apparently believe. Achromatic (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the verdict, the controversy over the death has received widespread attention and received significant coverage. the article covers the dispute. We don't have to decide what the connection was in actual fact. We just verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The last AfD was speedy-closed since there are so many sources for the topic. Will Beback talk 16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be off-site canvassing regarding this AfD. Will Beback talk 16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hope you are not implying that because something is discussed at website that shall not be named, in a way that in no way implies anyone should comment or vote a certain way, that people who are quite capable of contributing on their own are being canvassed? Achromatic (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that Will is referring to Wikipedia Review, because that is a public forum that many regular Wikipedia editors read or belong to, including SV for example, so discussing deletion requests there is not a violation of the canvassing policy. I think he is referring to another site although I can't be sure because he didn't give further detail. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cla68 himself said that he came here because of on offsite announcement of this AfD. Another editor who rarely participates in Wikipedia has !voted in this and another LaRouche-related AfD. I'm not saying that !votes are invalid - that's for the closing admin to determine. I'm just making an observation. Will Beback talk 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, you were referring to Wikipedia Review? I'm not going to link to the specific thread there, because it contains other comments on Wikipedia editors which could be construed as personal attacks if posted on-wiki. In any event, if you are going to allege or imply underhanded or unethical activity related to this RfC, you need to give as much information as possible for the closing admin. I don't recognize most of the editor's usernames who are voting to delete the article, so I don't know if they are regular readers of Wikipedia Review or not. Again, even if they are, the Review is forum that is visible and widely read, as well as participated in, by a broad spectrum of Wikipedia editors, including several arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that as of the time of this comment, I had voted Delete, and also participate on Wikipedia Review using the same username, I can only presume that you are referring to me, though by all means, clarify that you are not if this is not the case. As such, I would hope that you are not implying that someone with over 600 edits, though not in any Top 10 edit counts is invalid as a !voter, on the grounds of "rare participation" (I'm not sure that by most people in the wider world, rare participation would be an average edit every 2nd day over a couple of years), or due to the fact that I had voted on another AfD on LaRouche. Given that the scope of my article editing ranges from emergency medicine to pop culture to immigration to to technology, I think it would behoove you to assume good faith, rather than make remarks that "closing admins will need to determine whether !votes are invalid" whilst referencing my comments.Achromatic (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, it is officially a suicide, in which a young man made a couple of phone calls in which he seemed distraught, then ran around in traffic on a busy street until he was struck and killed. Then the family and anti-cultists don't want to accept the official verdict. It is largely a WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an archive of traffic fatalities or suicides of previously nonnotable people. Edison (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people become notable because of their death. Was Nicole Brown Simpson notable before being murdered? No. Is the OJ Simpson criminal trial non-notable because he was found not-guilty? No. Things are notable when they've been widely noted. In this case, there have even been questions raised about the matter in the House of Commons. So this is not an ordinary traffic accident. I refer you to the list of references in the article. Will Beback talk 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with this article, along similar lines to Edison's thinking. This article reads to me like a veiled implication of the LaRouche movement, couched in an article about a young man who may or may not have committed suicide. There doesn't appear to be a lot to directly link the two, other than speculative comments in various media, and when you separate the LaRouche involvement from the subject, you get a sad case of a young man who died too soon under circumstances that may or may not be questionable. That doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, to my thinking. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to affirm my above opinion, even with the change of name this article still seems to be intended to slant negatively towards the LaRouche faction. This is probably a pointless comment, as it's patently obvious this will be kept and that it has some emphatic defenders, but it would be nice if the article were to be, I dunno, balanced at some point in time to make it more neutral and less a WP:COATRACK as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article faithfully reflects the views of the reliable mainstream sources, Tony, which is what NPOV means. We can't make things up in an effort to make LaRouche look better. Even statements from the movement—blaming a conspiracy by Tony Blair and Al Gore—haven't exactly helped them either, but we're not their press spokesmen. We can't fix what they say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could give a fig whether LaRouche "looks better" or not; I'm saying this reads unbalanced from my viewpoint (which is well outside of the pro- and anti-Larouche camps) and that suggests it needs editing to be properly acceptable. The tone of the article and the way it's reported give the firm indication that the writers feel there's some sort of involvement by outside forces in the incident, which is why I'm uncomfortable with the way it reads. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. If consensus is to keep, at least get rid of all the conspiracy nonsense and tangents. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple independent sources directly on the subject of Jeremiah Duggan, both from Britain and Germany. I do not think WP:BLP1E applies because there are several events: the death itself, the original German police investigation, the British coroners' court hearing and its unusual narrative verdict, the discussions between the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the German authorities after the FCO took up the Duggan family's case, the independent investigation by Paul Canning in 2006-07, and the Judicial Review of the Attorney-General's refusal to have a second inquest in 2008. This makes several events in a longrunning and notable case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Extensively referenced to reliable sources in the UK and European press. Rename as appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Why are people quoting BLP 1E? He's not a living person. There is however an identical rule at WP:BIO1E DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—frankly I'm surprised that this was put up for deletion. The individual and the controversy surrounding his death have been covered by a number of reliable secondary sources, which are presented in the article. Furthermore, I feel that some arguments for deletion misinterpret the concept of 1E in general. If the individual is mainly known for his death, it's still not relevant to 1E. A 1E violation is an article actually about a notable event, in which the subject is one of many involved, and the event does not surround the subject. When the event is synonymous with the subject, it is usually not a 1E violation to write about the subject in an article that also covers the event. What is needed for the subject is only a basic indication of notability beyond the event, which ironically the event itself usually provides, as the mainstream media reports on the live of the subject outside the event. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Duggan's death was tragic regardless of the actual surrounding circumstances. However, there's no claim that this si a single event since it lead to serious ongoing issues. Moreover, the matter has also been discussed in the general context of the LaRouchian movement. I'm also concerned that it appears that Leatherstocking is POV pushing by trying to get articles deleted that have the potential to make look the LaRouche movement bad. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination) JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, if any POV-pushing is going on related to the LaRouche articles, do you feel that Leatherstocking is the only one doing it? From what I've observed, including in a couple of RfARs, it appears that NPOV editing to the LaRouche articles could be improved by many of the "regulars" of those articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if I were less inclined to assume good faith I'd be suspicious that the editors whom you refer just by sheer coincidence happen to be editors that you've interacted with negatively in the past. Moreover, whether other editors are editing problematically in regard to the LaRouche articles is utterly irrelevant to whether we have a problem with Leatherstocking. So let's try to keep things marginally relevant to this AfD ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is whether you have a problem with Leatherstocking, or with Cla68, relevant to this AfD? I think speculating about the motives of other editors is an extremely lame approach to arguing your position here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a problem with either of you would not be relevant to the AfD. Your repeated POV pushing on LaRouche articles is a problem. Dismissing such concern as "lame" doesn't do much. (Incidentally, something I do have an actual problem with is referring to yourself in the third person in a written form. In casual speech that's fine. In this sort of context it is confusing and comes across as pretentious). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember, is that when an editor is trying to combat POV-pushing in a certain subject area it can make that editor look like they're pushing the other side, when all they're really trying to do is balance the coverage of the topic. Haven't you ever felt like you were inadvertently in that position? I have. Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, but I a) don't see much issues with POV pushing in the other direction. If anything, this problem has caused many good editors trying to prevent pro-LaRouche POV from getting too extensive to possibly seem as pushing an anti-LaRouche POV. Moreover, the nomination of clearly notable articles like this cannot be explained by your hypothesis in any case. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be explained? Remember, that one of the criteria for AfD used to be if an article was too POV. I know that because I once nominated (unsuccessfully) a BLP for deletion based on that criteria. AfD is one of many forums that are useful for gaining otherwise uninvolved editors', such as yourself, comments and suggestions for an article. I'm sure, also, that you mean to express a full picture of any POV pushing that might be going on in the LaRouche articles, such as, for example that an author of a book that is critical of LaRouche, is actually a regular contributor to LaRouche articles in Wikipedia, but has apparently never been challenged on that by other editors who regularly edit LaRouche articles and also happen to be administrators and thus stewards of Wikipedia policy enforcement? Cla68 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral in that it reflects the views of all the reliable sources. We have in fact (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) minimized some of the allegations, because they are so serious and involve living persons—they are in the article, but we do not have an extended discussion of them, as some of the sources do. The coverage has been widespread and has involved in-depth pieces from the high-quality media. Here, for example, is the first part of an extended BBC Newsnight piece by Tim Samuels, which anyone familiar with the UK will recognize confers notability almost in and of itself. The attempt to re-open the German investigation has involved a number of prominent public figures, including numerous and senior MPs from all the major parties; there was an early day motion signed by 100 MPs, [11] and the matter is now before Germany's Federal Constitutional Court.
It is an issue that is strongly disliked by the LaRouche movement, for obvious reasons. As for Dennis King, he made three edits to the article in 2007, and is currently used as a source in it once, and only as one source among several to support that the movement has been known for using violence against its opponents; other sources saying this include academics, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, many of them pre-dating King as sources, so he is hardly alone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is "allegations." Newspapers frequently devote a lot of space to rumors, gossip, etc. Encyclopedias should not. Since this story never got beyond the "allegations" phase to any concrete demonstration of wrongdoing, the cosmetically re-named "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" article runs afoul of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article moved. Per discussion here, I've moved the article to Death of Jeremiah Duggan. Will Beback talk 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has obviously been established. The rest of your concerns are not a matter for this process to resolve and should be disregarded. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently a POV-based nomination. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just in the news for a few days; this incident is notable enough to be the subject of a cse before Germany's highest court. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not one event, and for those with BLP1E on your mind you might want to read about his death, apparently it was notable (the BLP stands for Biographies of living persons). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are problems concerning the balance of the article (for example, the LaRouche movement infobox seems wholly inappropriate) but these can be sorted out by normal editing procedures. Article deletion is not appropriate. Thincat (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Blacketer (under the new article name). Would be more comfortable if the article dispensed with the LaRouche movement infobox, as his involvement with the movement was brief, and attributing his death to his contact with the movement seems to take a definite side in the debate. --JN 466 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The death of Jeremiah Duggan has been the subject of dozens of articles in the respected mainstream British and German press as well as in Italian, Israeli and U.S. papers. It triggered an important investigative piece in the Washington Post Sunday edition by April Witt in 2004. Many of the articles focussed on the suspicious role of the LaRouchians and reported in detail on allegations of the group's cultism and anti-Semitism. I am also for keeping the LaRouche movement infobox, given the close connection between Duggan's death and his attendance at a LaRouche indoctrination conference/school that has been repeatedly reported in the media. The idea that the infobox should be removed simply because his contact with the group was "brief" is ridiculous--it only takes a few moments to beat someone to death once you've decided he's a "spy" for the enemy (or to beat him to where he flees in terror leaving behind the bloody passport that LaRouche apologists are always so curiously silent about).--Dking (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if Dking is going to participate in this discussion, he should disclose his conflict of interest. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation, even if it is sourced speculation, is not a sufficient reason for adding the template. It would be entirely different if there had been a conviction, or even just a trial alleging guilt; neither is the case here as far as I am aware. --JN 466 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for those who are commenting on the infobox, please see Template talk:LaRouche movement#RfC: Issues about "People" section. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jeremiah Duggan, or did he not, attend the Schiller Institute conference in 2003? Was he, or was he not, induced to attend a cadre school in Wiesbaden after the conference? Did he, or did he not, call his mother and tell her he was in big trouble? Was he or was he not found dead on a highway a few blocks from the offices of the LaRouche organization? The infobox should remain.--Dking (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the discussion, nomination is partisan. Looking at the article, there are plenty of sources suggesting encyclopedic significance. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GlassCobra 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kronberg

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

This article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because there are not sufficient reliable, third-party sources that focus specifically on the subject. The sources available are generally either LaRouche sources or self-published sites, and the available press coverage focuses mostly on LaRouche and tells us little to nothing about Kronberg himself; the article appears to be of the variety described at WP:COATRACK. The bottom line is that we can't write a biography of Kronberg because we don't have the appropriate sources to allow us to do that.--Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was the main topic of an extensive article in Washington Monthly, "Publish or Perish",[12] which was also excerpted in the Wall Street Journal and on a CBS news website.[13] as well as a Mother Jones (magazine) blog,[14] That article alone is sufficient to establish notability. Will Beback talk 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I just came across this article: "After suicide, Leesburg widow sues LaRouche", Loudon Times-Mirror. If we add that there will be 18 sources, which is a good indication that this is a notable topic. I should note that Leatherstocking has also AFD'ed a second article related to the LaRouche movement today, Jeremiah Duggan. Will Beback talk 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, these are actually articles about LaRouche, hence the WP:COATRACK problem.--Leatherstocking (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the text from WP:COATRACK that you're referencing. I don't recall anything in there about sources. Will Beback talk 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It isn't a reason to delete an article. Will Beback talk 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK describes a particular kind of violation of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. Kenneth Kronberg, the nominal subject, was not notable simply as the editor of publications. The article is not actually about him, but instead uses a non-notable individual as pretext for yet another fork of the great LaRouche melodrama at Wikipedia. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is COATRACK, then the solution is to edit the text. AfDs are concerned with notability which is a different matter. Since Kronberg has been the subject of a profile in a mainstream news source, the notability is established. Will Beback talk 02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The in-depth Washington Monthly piece establishes notability, [15] particularly as others have picked it up and commented on it. This is an issue that we can reasonably expect will get more coverage in future too, as the man's widow has started a lawsuit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about Kenneth Kronberg, then we are in violation of WP:BLP1E. If it is about his widow, it should be renamed, and we should be looking at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY issues. --Leatherstocking (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The claim in the deletion rational about too few sources, is contradicted by the references in the article. From the coverage in the Washington Monthly and others referenced, this is not a BIO1E. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Easily meets notability criterion. I'm also concerned that it appears that Leatherstocking is POV pushing by trying to get articles deleted that have the potential to make look the LaRouche movement bad. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination) JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has obviously been established. The rest of your concerns are not a matter for this process to resolve and should be disregarded. No BLP1E concerns either. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clearly a POV-based nomination. Suggest a Snow Keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the views being expressed here reflect a common belief that if it's in a newspaper, it belongs in Wikipedia. I think this is a misreading of policy, as seen in WP:NOT. Newspapers devote a lot of space to rumors, allegations and gossip -- encyclopedias do not. Once a story moves beyond the stage of allegations and innuendo, to a point where there are criminal charges for example, it becomes suitable material for an encyclopedia. In this case, that is clearly not going to happen. I would suggest a review of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wrong. As has been explained to you during this debate, the level of press coverage is sufficient. Your concerns are thus not a matter for this process to deal with. Your letter by letter reading of WP:NOT is also not a good sign nor is the fact that your edits are solely related to the LaRouche movement. Don't push your luck. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is a core policy. Do you have a conflicting interpretation of the policy, or do you suggest that we simply disregard it? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested no such thing. I'm telling you that such concerns are not a matter for this process to deal with. I don't care about LaRouche, I care about the way you're (ab)using AfD to solve an issue that should be dealt with through editing and dispute resolution. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Of the 17 sources cited, half do not mention the article subject, and the others only mention him as a suicide victim. As far as I can see, there are no substantial sources on the subject prior to his suicide in 2007 (which was a notable event because of his involvement in LaRouche's movement). Per WP:BIO1E; merge to another article, e.g. LaRouche movement. --JN 466 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the test of notability.--Dking (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

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

This is an ill-defined list and seems to me to be pejorative and casts a value judgment on persons of widely varying weight. The list is titled "overweight actors" but only uses the word "overweight" 3 times. The word "fat" is used 9 times and is generally considered offensive. And despite sources that refer to some with a variety of euphemistic words construed to mean "fat" (portly, hefty, outsized), there is no standard. Michael Tucker, who is short statured and not lean, is included. One major source is an essay, citing almost 20 names. There is no objective definition of a "fat" actor and the list in fact includes actors who were not always considered overweight, reflecting that weight is a transitive state, for instance Marlon Brando (he wasn't so in his early career). The lead to the list discusses actors who pursue roles calling for "fat actors" as a matter of career. This is simply horribly biased and in no way encyclopedic. What next? Fat actors who have blue eyes who used to be thin? Include Matt Damon because he gained a lot of weight for a role? Vincent D'Onofrio who gained what? - 80 pounds for a role, lost it all back, had to go on medication that caused a weight gain? He's up and down, who monitors that? Ill-defined and vague requirements for inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD started 13 March 2007 resulted in Keep. Edison (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, any kind of list that is based on a physical attribute, especially one that is not constant throughout either life or career, seems to be of dubious relevance. There are a lot of "types" and individual actors often specialise in types and breaking them down by categories or creating list articles for them, does not serve any purpose that I can see. Rossrs (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unencyclopedic. JNW (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some parts of the article do not seem too bad, but others appear synthesized, such as the casting call citation. It's akin to citing a flyer for a Wikipedia article, inflating its importance. The criteria for inclusion seems iffy, particularly for contemporary actors. (I removed a living actor's entry that was uncited; struck me as a BLP violation.) I do want to note that the essay is a reliable source; it is just an electronic version of an essay published in a book. So there is some precedent for discussing the role of "fat men", so I think this would be better accomplished by either converting this list article to a prose article where we only mention a handful of names. We could also merge such prose to Typecasting (acting); this seemed to be the closest fit. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rossrs and Wildhartlivie. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stong delete -I've seen quite some things in my time on here but this really takes the biscuit in terms of subjective content. How do you define overweight? Do you mean clinically obese actors? Would Christian Bale be considered overweight because he gained 100 pounds from being dead thin to play Batman? The list doesn't even have 300 pound Steven Seagal or who ate all the pies I love my fried KFC Jack Black. LOL. Himalayan 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does contain Jack Black, but for comparison, look at the version before I removed all the non-cited entries and ones cited to non-reliable sources [16].

Delete per nom. Nonconstant feature that is ill-defined. -Krasnoludek (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination and subsequent discussion. What's next . . . List of big-busted actresses in United States cinema? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a silly idea. Why not have a list of actors with beards while we're at it? Dincher (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Penn Delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually I could see some point in a list of actors who were/are notable specifically for being fat (rather than just any actors who once took an overweight role or who ate too much between parts). But to thrash out a workable definition and then to keep it focussed would demand too much policing for what it's worth. I agree with Erik's comment above, that this could perhaps be turned into an article on "Fatness in cinema" or some such thing. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (Selectively merge) to Character actor. I rescued this article in September 2006 by removing unreferenced names, writing the intro, with references reflecting considerable research, and noting examples such as Sydney Greenstreet, who played "The Fat Man" in Maltese Falcon. I found books which spoke of them as a type of character actor, just as much as a "romantic lead." I particularly wanted to avoid a listing of a noncharacter actor who simply put on a few pounds. In reviews of films or obituaries, sources which have long been included in the article as inline references like the New York Times referred to them as "proud of his rotundity (Sebastian Cabot)," "roly poly character actor (James Coco)," "rotund comic" and "fat boy (Lou Costello)," "portly" and "rotund comic actor(Dom DeLuise)," "rotund actor (Burl Ives)," and "roly poly character actor (Michael Tucker)." Several "delete" arguments were basically "IDONTLIKEIT" which is not a valid reason to fail to WP:PRESERVE well referenced results of research. So my suggestion is to keep the intro with some references and add it to Character actor with no list, but just a few of the historically important names. Wikipedia is not censored to avoid topics that may offend someone. HeartofaDog and Erik have it right. Merge the intro into Character actor and keep the referenced text with a few historical examples. That is the only way to avoid malicious or unreferenced additions. That will be better than a list which confuses as to its purpose and invites malicious or unreferenced additions. The "portly/rotund/fat/roly poly" comic or bad guy was a staple of the Golden Age of Hollywood, and those actors who made a living by carrying 300 pounds were far from romantic leading men who needed to go on a diet. {Character actor]] is a better fit than Typecasting which is more about the difficulty an actor has playing some other part than one he is known for. Edison (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely impossible to maintain. Y'all seen Jim Carrey recently? Dude looks like a walking football - because he's fattening up for the Three Stooges movie. He'll lose it later. Actors do that regularly. This list would be bouncing all over the place depending on roles the actors play. Besides, who defines "overweight" - do we base it on BMI? Look? Waist size? Impossible to manage this. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH if we do other than relying on reliable secondary sources, such as reviews or obituaries in publicatins such as the New York Times or books about actors and acting where they make the call. In Hollywood's Golden Age, the actors referenced pretty much stuck to that niche. As the article notes. today an obese character will likely be played by a slim actor in a fat suit, because the health risks of morbid obesity took their toll on to=he older generation of actors whose girth was their trademark and their fortune.Edison (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I actually don't buy that rationale regarding why actors play "fat" in fat suits. The sources didn't say that, and the article no longer does, although the article originally did say that today most fat characters are played by thin actors in fat suits. One source discussed Eddie Murphy's role in the Nutty Professor films and didn't address the underlying topic of a thin man in a fat suit - just that Murphy played an entire family who was large, while his alter-ego was thin. The other barely touched on "fat" roles played by thin people in fat suits as a matter of practice, it addressed films that use the topic of being big and later losing weight by using one lead actor in the suit to do so. It went on to discuss societal attitudes against obese persons and how that when thin actors play "fat" in films or on TV, it's a bit disengenuous. It didn't say anything about health risks of the morbidly obese being related to those "fat suit" roles of today, or that some given character isn't still played by overweight people. In fact, it gives a nod to Darlene Cates in Gilbert Grape and the Ricki Lake character in Hairspray. Neither source supports the statement. If this were the case, there wouldn't be a possibility of new additions to this list, which seems to be something where people add names quite often. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentDid you read reference 4, from 2006, which says "Most actors who play huge do so in what's referred to as a "fat suit." Seems clear enough. Note another new book references to this genre of character actor, in "Screening genders"(2008) which has a chapter "Hard boiled and soft bellied: the fat heavy in film noir." It says (p143) that by 1958 the "fat heavy" "had become a familiar and coveted role" and that the "fat heavy" was important in the film noir mythos.. It names Sidney Greenstreet, Orson Welles, Raymon Burr, William Conrad. It says that "veteran fat actors" included Charles Laughton and others, and refers to "the increasing number of fat men's roles in crime dramas." I believe that multiple reliable and independent refs support the notability of this acting genre. It is an important and referenced part of film history. An article just on "Fat heavies in film noir" could be well supported by the available references, leaving out comic actors for a different article, also well referenced. Edison (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I did see that sentence, but I saw it in the context of the entire article and not a flat out commentary that actors with greater physical weight are not used anymore. I'm not arguing against an actual article that intelligently discusses the role of the "fat actor" in film noir or golden era films. My issue is with this list, the vague criteria for inclusion to a list and the fact that the only seemingly criteria is weight - which is vague. If someone wants to take the written part and work it into a meaningful article, fine. No one is stopping them. That, however, is not what this list does nor what it accomplishes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft, and furthermore where does one stop? A lot of people are overweight but not exactly fat in a Fatty Arbuckle way, would you include them too, if their BMI is above ideal? Also, "actors in United States cinema" means actors from any country who have performed in US made movies (so you would need to include, for example, Canadian John Candy, Brit Ricky Gervais and countless others. It's all so arbitrary, it's better the list were simply deleted. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the logical reasons already given LargoLarry (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since no notice of this AFD was provided to ~~the creator of the article or~~ major contributors to it, as called for by the guidelines for AFD, I shall provide a friendly notice to all editors of the article of this AFD, other than blocked vandals, IP editors or bots. This is in accord with WP:Canvass, since I seek to inform editors of the article and specifically avoid seeking to influence their possible input. Edison (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - that is factually untrue. The creator of the article was notified here, a fact that you should have noted when you posted your notice to the user talkpage prior to posting your comment here. I do have to wonder why you felt the need to post a notice to every user that ever edited the page, even though about 1/3 of them have not been active here for months to years. That rather skirts violating WP:CANVASS in spirit, if not in fact. Meanwhile, the guidelines do not require that anyone be notified, it is a suggestion, and following that, the creator was notified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, I'm very concerned that what you did was canvassing. The revision history statistics show that besides you, there are no editors who have made more than four edits to the article, definitely not making them major contributors. There have been more than enough editors that have come by the AfD to weigh in, so we did not need additional opinions. I'm sorry to say that this strikes me as forum shopping; you even notified me when I had edited in the course of the AfD, reflecting the lack of surgical effort. I implore you not to notify this indiscriminately again. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for crediting me with the "lack of surgical effort. "See WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices. I read that before posting the friendly notices, which complied with the guideline by being a limited posting, sent to all editors who had edited the article, regardless of their apparent views about it, nonpartisan (specifically stating that no guidance was given) and openly done (I noted here that I was doing it.) I did not post on some project or on various widely read forums, I did not fire off emails,I did not post to some buddy list, I did not advocate for any position. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people which calls for "notifying interested people" and "notifying substantial contributors to the article" while avoiding "biased canvassing," of which I would have been accused had I selectively notified editors. The notification to the the article creator was meaningless, since he had only edited for 20 minutes, on this one article, in 2006, in all his Wikipedia career. I feel that I complied with WP:AFD and WP:CANVASS. You are welcome to try and change the guidelines, or to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I struck the portion of my previous post stating that you had not notified the creator (the 20 minute editor from 3 years ago) of the article. Note that I am not advocating Keeping the article, but my concern is that there be no barrier on merging portions of the referenced text (without the appended list) to a relevant article, Character actor, and/or Film noir, without someone complaining that the material was previously deleted in AFD and cannot be in the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, what you did can be interpreted as canvassing because you posted the notices on the talk page of almost all editors of the article, regardless of the substance of the edits. WP:CANVASS#Friendly notices says to send notices to those that have "substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion", and WP:AFD#Notifying interested people says it is courteous to notify "substantial contributors" and "any main contributors of the articles" and goes to say not to nofify "people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits". I understand that you wanted to avoid biased canvassing, but you don't need to notify every editor to be neutral. For example, you notified me, and I made a minor edit more than two years ago to revert the edits of a user shortly blocked afterwards. I gave my opinion here anyway because I don't mind friendly notices about articles I have no connection with, but others might. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim this article - down to nothing. Frank | talk 04:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me as original research, and a potential of BLP problems. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an unencyclopedic list that is potentially unlimited and subject to change often, making it impossible to maintain. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons given by LargoLarry and Mysdaao. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as article? It seems to me that there is a genuine value in having an article describing the historical (and modern) employment context for "overweight" men and women in the industry (assuming it is all tied to reliable sources, of course, which much of the items here appear to be). A few well-known examples would be useful for purposes of illustration, but this list seems superfluous, its criteria impossible to specify, and very difficult to maintain. Scartol • Tok 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is an article describing the historical and modern employment context for overweight men and women in the film industry encyclopedic? It wouldn't be factual, it would just be an essay filled with the POVs of the so-called "reliable" sources being quoted. 209.247.21.77 (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentAnother version of saying "I don't like it," when you dismiss books and articles as "Some writer's opinion" without demonstrating they are not qualified as reliable sources. Edison (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly craptastic. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is it the consensus here that we must pretend that Sidney Greenstreet did not play a character called "The Fat Man," in The Maltese Falconin 1941 and that, contrary to references, there were not such stereotypes in film noir of the 1940's and 1950's as the "Fat Heavy" as referenced above, and that Orson Welles did not play such a character in Touch of Evil in 1958? Seems like a triumph of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" over reliable sources and suitable matter for WP:DRV. Again, I agree that a list of names not embodied in the text with inline references invites WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response That is not what anyone said here at any time and it's a bit of hyperbole to suggest that. No one has disputed that there may be the basis of a valid article about a genre staple. The issue that was brought here was the list itself, which had no real rule of inclusion beyond the non-specific "overweight" or "fat". The problem is that the list as it exists isn't possible to maintain because there is no way to gauge inclusion criteria and it appears to me that most everyone here agrees that maintaining a list of ill-defined personal properties isn't acceptable. Like I said before, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from taking the basics from the lead and turning it into a possibly great article, but that can't be done from a list, the only criteria for which is the non-specific "overweight". There have been several points raised here that have gone unanswered, mostly about actors whose weight varies greatly, those that "get fat" for roles and that changes, or even, for that matter, actors who once were thin but gained weight as they aged, or once were fat but lost lots of weight. It's all too transitory for maintenance. But you know, suggesting that the overwhelming number of editors who don't find value in the list is fodder for WP:DRV is a bit contentious. Please take it as it is stated and consider that the comments are good faith opinions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to having the article, but the list has no context, it needs to have weighst and amke an attempt at calculating BMIs. The list needs sortable criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to call. I WP:Don't like it very much either. One problem is the word "overweight" in the title. It sounds like a judgement is being made about the guys. Is there a policy "WP is not a doctor"? Also the word "actor" can be used for women as well as men. You hear this on DVD movie commentary tracks a lot. A better title might be "Movie 'fat man' actors" or something. On the other hand the material is interesting and the topic is certainly notable, depending on how it's defined. Also the effort to provide references for each person is admirable. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The referenced text could be merged to [[Character actor], or the references could be used independently of the present text to improve any articles where they are appropriate, or to create one or more articles with no list, just referenced text. There seem to be 2 types of male actors intermixed: Film noir "heavies" like Sidney Greenstreet, and comics like Lou Costello. Former leading men who became overweight do not fit in, but the "Overweight" part of the title since it was made politically correct invited their addition to what was once an article about character actors. It is interesting that this article was far more extensively referenced (24 inline refs) than Character actor(zero references). Edison (talk) 23:58, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denis d'or

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

What is this, someone's homework. This article is rambling, without citation and looks like a precis of an essay someone wrote for school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.107.179 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm just the messenger, the rationale above was given for the AFD, I'm just completing creation of it. tedder (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If accurate, this would definitely be notable. I agree, there's a lot of cleanup to do, and we'll need references - but I think the subject is (or has the potential to be) notable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has an entry in Grove Music Online, which says that it "was the first musical instrument to involve electricity, though this was probably not an essential part of its action". Article could use some additional sources and a copyedit, but it's not irredeemably bad. Zagalejo^^^ 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked above shows obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Lesson of Belorussian

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

non notable film WuhWuzDat 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak keep per Phil. -Drdisque (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a review in Gazeta Wyborcza, which goes some way towards establishing notability, and here's a list of prizes, which would appear to cement notability. I can't find any evidence of an official English title, so would suggest either moving the article to the film's Polish title Lekcja białoruskiego or the more idiomatic A Belorussian Lesson - whichever conforms to the manual of style, which I don't have time to look up at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I take back the suggestion to move this. Googling for A Lesson of Belorussian[17] and, what I would consider much better translations of the title, A Belorussian Lesson[18]] or A Lesson in Belorussian[19] shows that the sub-optimal translation has become established as the English title of this film. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with kudos to Phil Bridger for his diligent WP:AFTER. While a Polish documemtary will likely not get much coverage in American press, WP:CSB allows consideration of coverage and notability created in its own part of the world. I am convinced by that coverage, and by its awards, that criteria for notability have been met. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leftlane

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

Even though I have heard of the site myself, this article lacks any form of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V to qualify. Also article is created by a WP:SPA user, hinting that he may have a potential WP:COI, hence the nomination. I will be willing to take this nomination back if I am proven wrong but there is nothing to prove its notability. Donnie Park (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search shows little to no coverage of the site and the article itself shows no evidence of notability. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The claims to notability for this topic are neither obviously decisive nor uncompelling, and there appears to be broad disagreement among participating editors here as to whether the topic ought to be retained. I don't believe this debate would benefit from further participation, so have declined to relist. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Krippner

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

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

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

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable academic (as per WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Few refs. Refs fail WP:RS as all are from WP:FRINGE sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thorough nomination, agreed, fails numerous guidelines -Drdisque (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article it has been on wikipedia for 3 years and although Many may not agree with him he has obtained atention. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood but duration on wikipedia and attention are not criteria for WP:PROF. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass any relevant (or otherwise) notability criteria, lacks WP:RS. That it's been here 3 years means this should have been done 2.5 years ago at least. Verbal chat 19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Krippner and WP:PROF If we look at WP:PROF we see only one area in which Krippner is borderline; item 5. Under this item if a person has held a named chair at a major educational institution they would be notable. Now according to Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center Krippner holds a named chair. Those in favour of his notability might point to that. But, just a few points.

1) Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center cites no in-line citation for this named chair.
2)The source for the named chair is this - not a WP:RS.
3)[20] lists Krippner as executive faculty but does not list him as having a named chair.
4)Saybrook Graduate School is a regionally accredited distance education facility. I think that claiming a named chair at this school stretches the definition of " a major institution of higher education and research" to the breaking point. I'm not knocking Saybrook, they appear to be a valid accredited school, but they aren't Oxford if you catch my drift.

Based on this I am satisfied that, after taking a sober second look this is not a notable professor. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites are 113, 80, 60,48, 49... with h index = 20. Looks like a clear keep unless there are issues not apparent to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Considering that an h-index of 18 would indicate full professorship I don't see how that contributes to notability under WP:PROF not every professor is notable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The number of WP:GHITS is not an acceptable argument, google isn't an arbiter of truth or notability Verbal chat 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - GS (we are not talking about WP:GHITS) is one objective measure of impact. What are WoS cites? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Inclined to delete, this looks a marginal call to me. There are surely many thousands of academics that would meet such a bar for notability. None of the sources seem very reliable, considering this is a WP:BLP. —BillC ^talk 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt in my mind that he meets all criteria Artaxerex (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The citations aren't strong enough for me to use them in an argument for keeping, and I think Simonm223 clearly refutes the argument based on WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he may not be a notable academic professor, im not going to address that, but he has published at least 5 books in his subject area from notable, trade book publishers, and i believe a search for book reviews in New Age, mind/body, alternative psychology magazines will show he is extremely notable in that field, as at very least a respected popularizer of the ideas he focuses on. unfortunately, it seems hard to find sufficient third party reviews for some authors, and i know that not all trade publishers books are notable, though i believe most of his are. I hope someone can find some reviews, and i will try as well. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

found a review in peer reviewed journal, Journal of Parapsychology, for a book not in article, so i added it. SUNY is a major academic publisher. honestly, why are we debating this mans notability? there are a lot of valid points here about specific criteria, but i really feel that if we look at the entire work and notability of this man, he passes easily.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The journal of parapsychology is not a WP:RS. Verbal chat 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion suggestion said that Krippner was not a notable author, although numerous publications are listed on the page itself. Also it said references are from 'fringe publications'. 'Fringe publications' is subjective and a matter of opinion. Also, is wikipedia not allowing 'fringe' topics and people any longer? Who gets to decide what is 'fringe'? One man's fringe is another man's mainstream. The fact that Krippner's page was suggested to be deleted is hard for me to understand. Krippner is probably one of the most prolific transpersonal psychologist in terms of publications, look at his website and check out his CV if you disagree with me. His number of publications in academic journals is enormous, if not super human (not exagerating, look at his bibliography, http://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/--complete-bibliography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Just as an author of several books and contributor to several others via major presses such as Doubleday, Simon & Schuster, MacMillan, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam and Harper & Row, and an editor of several publications, Krippner merits an article. His work with the Kent State University Child Study Center and the Maimonides Medical Center Dream Research Laboratory, along with his decades of work with Saybrook, have established him as a major authority in the research of dream states and a growing voice in the research of entheogens and their use in tribal cultures. For these and the points mentioned above, I say keep. Rosencomet (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do not agree with certain 'fringe' theories i do not feel it is appropriate to go around trying to delete articles that you deem to 'fringe'. This to me is wikipedia vandalism under the guise of 'law and order'. The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is such a s STRONG KEEP leads me to believe that many with power and authority on wikipedia are using it to serve (perhaps unconscious) personal goals. I just defies logic to me that there is apparently a group of editors on wikipedia that are out to purge the site of 'fringe' topics and people. Wikipedia 3.0, fringe free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC) — 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep. The number of published books by Krippner's is enough to merit an article, as is said above. Also, Saybrook is not just an online university as implied above, the leading academics in the field of Transpersonal psychology are professors there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.205.146.11 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROF is treated above, and WP:AUTHOR is likewise not met. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I understand the author angle, the article is not written in that context. Rather, the article paints him quite clearly as an academic – necessitating WP:PROF as our yardstick. Corollary: if you want to eval him as an author, re-write the article as such. I'm afraid that as an academic, his impact does not seem to be very high. I used this WoS query: "Author (krippner s*) Refined by: Institutions=(SAYBROOK INST OR SAYBROOK GRAD SCH OR SAYBROOK GRAD SCH & RES CTR OR SAYBROOK INST GRAD SCH OR SAYBROOK INST GRAD SCH & RES CTR OR SAYBROOK INST PSYCHOL OR SAYBROOK UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI", finding 29 journal articles (plus other stuff like book reviews and abstracts) for an h-index of 6. His highest-impact article has 141 cites, but this paper has >30 authors with his name appearing about a quarter of the way through, so it would be difficult to assign a large portion of the credit to him personally. With an h of 6, the citation count obviously falls off extremely rapidly. I do not argue that his number of "publications" is large – I checked his CV, as suggested by the anon above, and there is indeed a lot listed there. The problem again is that his scholarship has clearly not had much of an impact in the WP:PROF sense. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

if the subject is notable as an author, not an academic, and a rewrite is needed, then its simply not a subject for deletion. we dont debate whether an article is well written or has the right focus here, only if the subject is notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither do we go on notability "fishing expeditions", trying out different criteria until we hopefully find one for which a subject passes. The article is plainly written in the context of the subject being an academic – the precise jurisdiction of WP:PROF. It's clear that there are pushes here for passing him under other criteria, yet with all the scrutiny the article is currently receiving, it has not evolved to include his alleged accomplishments or notable activities in these other areas. Perhaps you'll consider putting some of this material in so that we can have a better go at an objective assessment. I've read your entries below, which suggest you are aware of such material. Please WP:BEBOLD and put it in, otherwise it makes no sense to plead keep when there's nothing in the article that makes a valid claim of notability for him. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I did start adding material, which was summarily removed twice, along with all his other works. as for my intent, I am not engaged in a fishing expedition. i have no particular interest in whether he qualifies as an academic, and dont have the skills to document that. i have been aware of this person all my adult life, and am familiar with his work as an author, so to me he meets that easily. i was surprised to see him here while scanning AFD's for interesting debates i felt i had something to add to, expressed my opinions, added material without success, and, i have no personal stake in the matter, unless mr krippner is using me with his psychic powers :)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSimply can not understand how the above is not enough to merit an article on wikipedia. Obviously wikipedia has morphed into something that i thought that it was not. I did some research on this and found that others out there disagree with the direction wikipedia has taken. Just dont understand how there is not room on wikipedia for a Stanley Krippner article. Amazing that 29 journal articles is not enough for an entry. The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is up for deletion is just surreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. It's not amazing at all that "29 journal articles is not enough". The relevant fact is that this work has not had an impact according to the well-established guidelines of WP:PROF. You've only made a few edits on WP, almost all of which are related to this article, so you may not be aware of the enormous body of precedent that such arguments are based upon. I get that you really want there to be an article on this person, but he doesn't appear to satisfy WP:PROF and it is indeed naive to subsequently interpret this as some type of bias against him. Now, perhaps you might argue that he passes on some other condition, for example maybe as being "generally notable" (WP:GNG) because of his views, books and coverage in the pop media, etc. If you feel this to be the case, then WP:BEBOLD and please stop the "conspiracy theory" rhetoric. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Response. i've edited other topics on wikipedia but that old account went inactive. I thought about making an account but am seriously wondering if i want to put up with the wiki-police and brow beating on such matters as whether a notable transpersonal psychologist is 'notable'. it appears wiki has become s.thing i did not think it was...and i guess i just have to accept that. I don't interpret this delete suggestion as a bias aginst krippner, but a bias against anything considered 'fringe' (the irony is that krippner is really not fringe at all, not sure why the UFO thing was added on his page). I am aware of how passionate some people get aginst 'fringe' theories. the larger 'conspiracy theory' that i'm maintaining is that wikipedia has been taken over by individuals who are focused on making wikipedia less inclusive, this to me is aginst what i thought wikipedia was all about. like ive said before in this discussion, others on the web feel the same way and have similar frustrations as i in this regard. also, im aware that my comments have offended people in this discussion and am sure that because of this his article will be deleted. I failed to see the social mores of the wikipedia community and abide by them. this whole 'not had an impact' is all subjective regardless of the 'WP guidelines'...people interpret things the way they want to see it. life is sujbective and so is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC) -->— 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It looks like the destructive element of wikipedia will win this one...& it appears other tags have been put on this article. The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is up for so much discussion is just beyond my understanding. It appears wikipedia has, changed. I did some research on this and it appears others have similar frustrations. In my opinion the users attempting to delete this article have an axe to grind. For example, I find it very interesting that one user who initially tagged the article uses the 'fringe message board' on wikipedia. Looks like they are trying to consciously or unconsciously purge all of wikipedia from 'fringe' subjects. I just dont have the free time to fight that Stanley Krippner's article stays but it appears some on wikipedia do. It is so silly and outrageous that it SHOULD stay, it is simply hard to argue otherwise. I honestly feel that the people who are trying to delete this article are vandals and are vandalizing this article under the guise of 'law and order.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) -->— 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment it appears that 68.184.121.12 is a SPA. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment says the individual who tries to purge wikipedia of 'fringe' articles....whats that old saying...takes one to know one...?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) -->— 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment in the middle of this debate, the entire list of his printed works has been removed from the article, including books from major trade publishers, like harper and row. i would request that this material be added back, in fairness to the debate. This action makes me question the intent of those who would remove it at this time, which i do NOT want to do. i can understand self published works, personal websites, etc, but not this. i believe he is a major author, and i would request that someone who feels he is not show good reason to dismiss his books. I have found evidence that he is a major author in this field, and it was removed without debate from the article. If he fails notability, removal wont be necessary, but can we leave info that is at least debatable in the article until this debate is completed?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I restored the long list of works, some of which are from academic publishers like Plenum, Gordon & Breach, Brunner-Mazel and SUNY. Such information is very helpful in assessing notability. A rule of thumb for academics' articles is all the books and the top few papers; harder to apply for him because he co-authored and (co) edited a lot.John Z (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)That would be a topic for the article talk page. If you feel there are any major works please justify on the article talk page. Verbal chat 07:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - this author is in multiple academic libraries, including [21], and [22] and "song of the siren" was published in both hardcover[ISBN 0060647868] and trade paperback[23], which supports him being more than a one shot author. and i will add back the material. I dont believe its only a topic for the talk page, as people who weigh in at this afd may not browse the history since this afd began, and may not get all the relevant info. i will make a case at the articles talk page, in time, for each and every listing that i can find references for. how about if you give specific reasons for each deletion before mass deleting an entire section, and why not wait for the end of this afd?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added the material back, and it was reverted. i have indicated on the talk page of the article which publications i consider notable, and will, as i said, try to find references when i have time and energy. in the meantime, i am going to stop any editing of the article or this page until i have some sense of whether this process is on track or becoming an edit war. i have no desire to engage in any sort of conflict, and i am afraid i have either inadvertently started one, or am unwillingly involved in one. if i am adding to a conflict, i apologize and will wait for others to weigh in. i have no idea how to ask for help on such a matter, and will not even attempt to do so, as i also know that soliciting help itself can be disruptive if not done properly, and i honestly dont know the correct procedures, if any. thanks for letting me add my say here. goodbye for now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe that the works Mercurywoodrose has marked with a + would be a good start for a bibliography. As I noted on the talk page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) encourages completeness, not just major works, and wikipedia-notability of each individual work is not required. Oh and Keep per above keeps, fwiw, don't have time to explain, found an RS article on him a few days ago, but wasn't sure it was right Krippner until today. Noticed the afd is getting long in the tooth.John Z (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a well-established fringe author, which meets the notability requirement 1 and 3 from WP:AUTHOR. That his books and references to him are fringe diminishes the reliability of the work itself, not the notability of the person. The sources, while unreliable on science, are reliable for establishing that he has a substantial body of work (3) and that he is respected among his own fringe peers (1). The article itself, however, needs to be rewritten, but that's not a criteria for deletion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:PROF per Simonm223, no verifiable substantiation (reviews in RS publications, etc) for assertions that he meets WP:AUTHOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nealparr. Meets criteria 1 and 3.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Nealparr and Epeefleche - looks like he passes WP:AUTHOR to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passed my search - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any working professor is going to have published works. It is part of the job description. That is why we have WP:PROF. He doesn't meet that standard. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanley Krippner, however, is rather prolific in his field of fringe consciousness research [24] and written a lot [25] (plenty of reliable verification of this). He meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria over WP:PROF (which would apply more to mainstream academics). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is what he has written notable as mainstream popular-press writing? Because if it's intended only for other consciousness researchers rather than a mainstream audience, I think we should apply WP:PROF. We shouldn't give fringe researchers relaxed standards merely because they're fringe. And quantity of writing (without consideration of the level of impact that writing has had) has never been part of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a reasoned argument. The criteria regarding impact for WP:AUTHOR is important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and for WP:PROF is significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. The field for Krippner is parapsychology. I would say, yes, he has made a significant impact in his field, among his peers, broadly construed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It occured to me that since I edit a number of parapsychology articles, I may have more of a familiarity with Krippner than casual editors. In addition to his notability in parapsychology and related subjects (like transpersonal psychology), he's also notable in relation to drama between skepticism and parapsychology (played out in the popular press in the late 70s and throughout the 80s). He was president of the Parapsychological Association, for example, when Project Alpha occured, and appeared in the popular press in articles by the New York Times. He's referenced (sometimes as a target, of course) in a good deal of skeptical literature, for example The Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptical Inquirer. Notability isn't temporary, and like I said, Krippner has been quite prolific over the past decades. I understand that those not familiar with parapsychology related topics may not recognize the name, but familiarity of the subject to a great deal of editors isn't what the WP:N is based on. There's real, substantial material in regards to this man that more than meets WP:N requirements. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also to the WP:PROF argument, Stanley Krippner received the the American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology.[26] I'd say that meets criteria 1 and 2 from WP:PROF.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krippner is also known for his work with dream research and shamanism. I also want to appoligize for SOME OF my earlier comments. I think that they may have taken this AFD thing of course b/c of arroused passions. so if i am responsible, then please forgive me. it was just so shocking to see such a notable transpersonal psychologist up for deletion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only page in which strange things have gone on. There has been a recent failed attempt to AfD David E. Goldberg whose highest cited publication has 36 thousand cites according to Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Move to Close I've added the APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology to the article as well as several other awards Krippner has received, and cited this to the APA. Considering our own American_Psychological_Association#Awards says that this award is one of "the highest honors given by the APA, and among the highest honors that a psychologist or psychology researcher can receive", that clearly meets criteria 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level from WP:PROF --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gnews search has multiple newspapers quoting him as an authority repeatedly, meaning he meets WP:PROF criterion 7 (major impact outside academia in their academic specialty). These newspapers include the NYT, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, etc. I offer no opinion as to whether his biography should present him as a serious scientist or a proponent of fringe theories. Ray^Talk 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the problem here; his h-index seems to be around 22, hundreds of Google books returns, 177 Google News returns. Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mandarin Chinese profanity#Positive connotations, per Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics_and_small_topics_in_broader_contexts. Should mention of the topic in the Mandarin Chinese profanity article be omitted at a later date, the appropriateness of the redirect can be revisited. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niubee

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

Contested prod. Dictionary definition. No assertion of usage beyond the three references used, two of which are in Italian. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what assertion of usage can be accepted?

this expression is not a word can be found in a dictionary, but we speak it when we met something fantastic. if you know some chinese, you will found that they used to say it many times.

Although in chinese literary works, You can't found a description of usage of this expression. they just use it directly. and those writings are in Chinese so I can't show it here.

the three references, which in English and Italian, use to prove that this expression already been known by the people in the Non-Chinese world. and I think it described the situation when to use it and how to use it, at least in games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyyn (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary would be an acceptable assertion of usage. What you are asserting is merely the fact the word has been used in one circumstance, not even close to being enough for a Wiktionary entry, let alone a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are many words , including "fantastic" in English, are "merely the fact the word has been used in one circumstance".

there are many expressions that have not been collected by a dictionary, but it is used for long history. How can we record them in our civilization? if wiki is not the way, where the way is?

on the other hand, you can see the entry "paper_tiger" in Wikipedia, what's diffrent between it and "niubee" ? "niubee" even has used more widely.

now I know your opinion, or the rule of Wikipedia. I will check that if I can found more evidence, or You will change your mind.

I has another question which do not correlate current discussion:

if someone invented a algothrim, and he named it "x", the "x" has not used by others before, and some people know this algothrim as "x", but the author did not publish any paper with a publication with some authority, can "x" be acceptable to become a entry to introduce this algothrim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyyn (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Wikipedia cannot be used to introduce anything. In your example, the mere fact that "x" has not been published in any authoritative paper is reason enough why Wikipedia cannot have an article on "x". -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article doesn't indicate that there's much more to be said about this word than its definition; it doesn't appear that it is possible to expand this into an encyclopedia article because of the absence of sources discussing the term in detail. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

And what about the entry Paper tiger?

a phrase had been used by a famous person (Mao) is more acceptable than a word is used by people in daily life?

As I know, there are some mistake in the entry Paper tiger. for example:

the entry says the interview with Mao is in 1956, but there is no reference to confirm this.

As you said, it's not acceptable, but the fact is it still there.

the official infomation provided by XINHUA NEWS AGENCY mentioned that the interview is at 5 pm, 8/6/1946. this infomation can be confirmed in Chinese.

since You can not read and understand Chinese, if I am going to modify the Paper tiger entry, How can I ensure my modifaction would be acceptable?

In current entry "niubee", It's the same:

If you are a chinese, you can know what I say, and why I make a modification to a exist entry or create a new entry about something.

But you are not, and you said it's not acceptable. so I don't know what can I do now. --Eliyyn (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is not about Paper tiger. If you think that article should be deleted, there are instructions on how to do so at WP:AFD. In order to make an argument for keeping this article, you need to share reliable sources that discuss it in detail. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

First, I must say thanks to you all. with your posts I learned much about the rules and how to use this editor :) Second, I will work hard on finding more reliable sources.But if there are only Non-English version, How can I do? Third, I know it's difficult to find some references (for this) which are more reliable than the references for Paper tiger. so as a newbie, i need to know what's the standard of reliable. not just for this word, but for future. --Eliyyn (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about notability at WP:N. Although English sources are preferred at English Wikipedia, non-English sources are also acceptable, as long as they're good published sources. There are people here who read Mandarin, though I'm not one of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references used are about the word, they're about games, as near as I can tell - in which the word is mentioned once in each article. We can't do anythign with this word - perhaps put it in the Chinese version of Wiktionary? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandarin Chinese profanity. There is already a section about this word in the Positive connotations section of that article (as "niubi" - the literal meaning is "cow's vagina"). I don't think this word is any more common in English than the rest of the words in that list, in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ironfrost (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandarin Chinese profanity#Positive connotations per Ironfrost above. GlassCobra 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Closed early due to BLP concerns.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Judy

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E, the only reliable coverage of this individual is in the context of an event 15 years ago.At best, he'd get a mention in a LDS article about the event (which I'm not convinced is that notable) but not a separate article (Which article I have no idea as it's not an area I know anything about). Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron here is obsessed with an LDS criteria. This article was just recently removed from under the control of the LDS Faith and promotion of the LDS Faith at the expense of a 'living person'. Cameron has been the biggest contributor to editing the article and eliminating important references. For those who are interested a libelous law suit has been given a 'NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ACTION' to Wikipedia, which apparently changed the criteria of the page to "a living person bio'. Not only has Cameron disregarded the Judical Branch of Governement, the Legislative Branch of Government Contributions of this individual as a matter of record, in the persons Bio, but given no credit to the many articles up to date on proceedings through print media,internet articles, and evan national TV. It is clear Cameron has an agenda to destroy the public works and information of this person which also includes an Autobiography published by iUniverse, and listed on "google book search" as an independent on line library. In reference to Wikipedia HOWARD W. HUNTER, not only is Cody Judy listed in his works, but Cody Judy has been the topic of many college articles and reports for LDS People, and wikipedia has been a terrific source for a consolidation of a large amount of material Cameron here wishes to delete. This is the Spirit contrary to Wikipedia policy as it seeks to educate, inform, and progressively maintain high standards that do not report 'Libelous' material about living persons, otherwise becoming subject to civil proceedings. Just about two weeks ago this article was given a biography status, and isn't it interesting that Cameron is the one who in seeing himself lose control of editing so much and so many times this article is now the one proposeing it be deleted.75.169.98.4 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)— 75.169.98.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm an english atheist and have no connection to the LDS. The version I have reverted to is the last good version I can see in the history (not written by me, I came across the article yesterday) that meets our BLP standards. I can't make heads nor tails of the version the IP likes, and blogs and the like are not reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, this isn't worth paying attention to. Let them rant and invent conspiracy theories. "Pfff" is enough. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well just so others can do the research intended for "high standards" of wiki, which you obviously haven't done in the time frame you just articulated..here's a version for others to consider. Please make specific what you can't make heads or tails of because every single sentence is pretty much backed up with references 75.169.98.4 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note this is the IP's preferred version [27] Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete. this is more or less the definition of a BLP1E case, and the version preferred by the IP above doesn't meet BLP, NPOV, or Verifiability. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per WP:BLP1E also suggest that 75.169.98.4 be blocked for making legal threats.Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - so warned --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tan has now blocked this IP for two weeks. The editor previously used a different IP, which was also blocked for making legal threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To 75.169.98.4, please do not insert entire articles into a discussion on deletion. A simple link from the history will be just fine. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a perfect example of why we have policies like WP:BLP1E. Nothing to suggest any real notability aside from one event. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from being WP:BLP1E, the article seems to be some sort of soapbox for 75.169.98.4. – jaksmata 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot say that this action makes anyone notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable aside from this one incident - unfortunately for this gentleman (as I'm sure it has blighted his life), all other attention is predicated on the basis of "this is the nut who...." Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as very much BLP1E. If there was any coverage of his running for election in in non-trivial reliable sources I might change my mind. But the altercation that is the primary matter seems like textbook BLP1E. Nor is the event noteworthy enough to have its own article not focusing on Cody Judy but the incident. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. I have a hazy memory of when the event happened, it being a kind of big deal, but that's not enough to overcome the BLP issues. Unit Anode 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one event. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is deleted, should it also be WP:SALTed, given the recent "persistent editing" of the article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. The !votes so far look like WP:SNOW to me. Outside of the WP:BLP1E itself, I'm not seeing that the guy's done anything except spend money on a few odd hobbies (self-publishing a book, running for office, etc.). Just for your future reference, User:75.169.98.4: having a book published by iUniverse (i.e., self-publishing) does not contribute towards anyone's notability. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Mitt Romney go ahead and delete. Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this may be an attempt by the subject of the article to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

– Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)

75.169.188.7 (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)— 75.169.98.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is it okay to erase a comment that's made by someone who's supposed to be under a two week block? I wouldn't mind. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I've gone and collapsed the wall of text below. It's still there if anyone needs to read it, but I don't feel that it contributes to the deletion discussion --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for 75.169.188.7: are you saying that you are Cody Judy, and other editors should therefore show you leniency? – jaksmata 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, are you the same person that previously edited this article under 75.169.98.4 (talk · contribs), 74.41.224.142 (talk · contribs), 75.169.97.1 (talk · contribs), 75.169.97.136 (talk · contribs), 70.192.141.190 (talk · contribs), &/or 75.216.18.144 (talk · contribs) ? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: interesting IP activity also in the article. I've just reverted to an earlier version by Sarek, after some not so helpful edits, incl. an enormous amount of fluffy and irrelevant links, by 75.169.188.7. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comments from sock of blocked IP

In the article regarding the event itself, I believe it would be foolish to say it is not covered in a very strongly POV of the LDS Faith and strongly against Cody Judy. The "fairness standard" in covering an event, is not to sway one way or the other, but to simple cover the event as it happened. For example, the police were not excluded in the Rodney King beating were they? Yet, the editor of the current article illiminates two important factors from the edit: There in fact was no weapon, the charges filed by the sheriff department first were misdeameanors, and Cody Judy was actually put in the hospital from the beating he took at that event. The article in its' defended version, that of most editors shall I say, grossly misrepresents the actual event and many important factors of that event, which in covering it should be covered. The comparison here is the media tank of MSNBC for Obama. It is so grossly swung the door for the guy, they do not recognize the Emperor with no clothes, in so many words. Now it is impossible to really cover all the backgrounds and POV'S of every single contributor of this page. However, when it comes to not wanting to cover an event, as it happened, without the "fluffy" stuff for the "LDS POV", and in fact realizing that covering the event as it truely happened, and following the evidence trail down the road, to see a guy spend 7 years in prison for a protest of whatever he was protesting, is an American crying shame. How would any of us want to be incarcerated with evidense used that we could not get. That is the case with the research I have done. The video tape is in fact held by the Church Presidency. It was on record as being withheld from the public with sources quoted in the article that are verified. While the editors in collusion here rely on tabloid fever, as respectable sources, and count me as inserting "fluffy stuff", I challenge any of them to actually pull court records and do some research as I have. I'm telling ya this guy was rammed by the Justice Department and denied so many constitutional rights, and tanked by most media sources you actually rely on. When you actually do the research and glean the tid-bits of truth actually articulated in the articles, the not so fluffy stuff comes to light in the articles I submitted as simple contributions, as well as court cases I researched and cited, which I am really very positive none of you have taken the time to do. This is the reason, you in some cases very snarely, riducule me, and leave snipit remarks as to the quotes from references I put together. Furthermore, when it comes to contributing to the exact wording of articles, if I may have not worded something correctly, or if you thought it could be worded better, rather than suggest a different way to get the point across, you all of you, have rather than made suggestions, really just voted to delete the entire content. This to me shows each and every one of you apposed to the many hours of research I have done. The article was changed from an "event" article, to a "biography" aritcle by reliable sources in SanFrancisco, California who are aware that the article event as defined by The Defenders here, was in fact a living person and it is not the intent of wikipedia to destroy someone's reputation for life, especially when Cody has made some significant contribution. The Daily Show contribution was a national treasure,hilarious! Have any of you watched it. Jon Daily and Mo Rocca are featured on wiki. Presidential candidates for 2008, have you noticed his name there? Elections for 2002 and 2004, his name is there. Although he didn't get many votes, the contributors here have focused on, there is only one winner in a political race, all the others are losers too, regardless of how many votes they received. Have you also contributed to how many votes say Alan Keyes received on his wiki page. Answer: No. He is called a perennial presidential candidate. The medication issue is a pretty big slander here if you know how the story goes and the time line of events. When you mix those up you actually commit a pretty gross libelous claim. The only time in his history meds were prescribed was during a 2 week stint at a half way house. So over a 9 year period covered here, we see he was sent to a half way house that required all inhabitance take meds. It wasn't an option. Cody, hadnt been on meds but didnt' want to go back to prison after 7 years of it. He tried them and was actually violated by the Dr with informed consent as court records go. In other words the Dr gave him something else rather than what Cody and his Lawyers had agreed to in order to not be sent back to prison. After the sever side affects kicked in, Judy refused, and was simply sent back. The Doctor took notice and left that half way house over the law suit. Now when you look at the content of your defended article it makes the guy look like he was on med for 9 years. This is libelous and not true. Judy actually had many doctors in his corner saying he didn't need any medication, and the Board finally gave him a straight public release parole and he did great. Now, read your article and tell me that's the message you convey about this individual? When "medication" became issue of 1 article, you misquoted the context of the article realizing it was talking about a 2 week period out of 9 years. You could have just as easily quoted an article "touched by an angel" that quoted the reporter as seeing a "good mental health report", but you don't want to quote that kind of thing, because all you care about is framing this guy. This is why I'm very dissappointed in my fellow wiki's here. You haven't done the research and your relying on an obvious LDS Bias. It's just interesting that when the article became a 'BIO', which is why I included the 'Bio' dialogue, that suddenly it is up for dismissal. Frankly, I think it better to dismiss the article entirely than continue a lie, and a subversion of the truth in a fair commentary, and biography.75.169.188.7 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When it comes to "fluff" why don't you read Mitt Romney's Wiki, and tell me Politicians don't get any fluff. LOL. That is why I made the remark about Mitt Romney. You read his article, and find paragraphs on a platform. How is that not a POV. Would the editors here allow a POV on the issues of the Platform of Mr. Judy's campaign while he was running. The answer is no. The wiki editors actually contributed to making sure Cody was framed in a 'bad non-fluffy way' in each of his campaigns. The Constitution of the U.S. actually states "no prior servitude shall be used against you' which is why Cody has been able to conduct himself in the Federal Elections process. Have any of you contributed in a positive way in respecting that? I don't notice any positive note from any person here. I dare make a statement backed up by the evidense here, no wonder we are in the sad state of affairs we are in. I for one, would much rather have had the public informed about a campaign then contribute to the socialistic road to communism. If you guys are American, this is not something you should be proud of. Of course that is my educated POV.75.169.188.7 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above commenters. Totally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A nobody, it would seem, although the list of external links in an earlier version tries hard to provide Z-list celebrity by association in US fruitcake politics. I smell snowball. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While several of the delete votes are quite weak, the consensus seems to be that the subject does not meet the relavent notability guidelines and that the article ought to be deleted. NW (Talk) 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Maldonado

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

Article about a USAF servicewoman who also claims a multitude of other talents, including modeling, poetry, and songwriting. While there is a great deal of biographical content and claims of notability, I am not fully convinced that the subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia (not to mention that the article cites zero reliable sources). The thread was originally speedily deleted under A7 but the author (who I should add has the same username of this subject of the page) reposted it. I'm posting this article here on AfD as opposed to speedy deletion to get the opinions of other editors. If the author cannot provide any reliable sources that show the WP:N notability of this person, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication she meets any notability guidelines. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about her that I could find. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There could be some sources out there regarding the multitude of notability assertions. I would give this article more time. Also, I would not be too troubled if it were deleted. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to myspace. Apparently author can easily recreate and this reads like a social page not an encyclopedia entry. No obvious notability but I will concede to have not checked for sources but someone will have to if they want to keep the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV, self promotional article (actually the creation user claimed at first CSD to be ex husband, so maybe not self, but serious COI nevertheless). All "see also" links are to self promotion sites, social networking or own commercial webs, nothing independent. Between the hypnotherapy counsellor, the teacher, the small time journo, the HR manager and the one from gigglepants, among other Monique Maldonados, it was hard to find anything at all about this one, and nothing "notable". All I see is a person that is living a full life, nothing more.--ClubOranje^T 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several above, does not pass WP:BIO. GlassCobra 14:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to electronic stability control per discussion below, so closed as moot. Saw no compelling reason to delete history, though, so I left it and simply redirected. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management

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

blatant spam for a feature of Toyota vehicles, speedy tag removed removed by editor whose name STRONGLY suggest COI WuhWuzDat 13:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest redirect to electronic stability control, the general term for this kind of car feature. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear the VDIM system is not ESC, it has specific features which make it VDIM. VSC is Toyota's version of ESC. ESCVDIM (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough - that was the target you proposed earlier; is there a better target, if we had to redirect? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect per Smerdis. I note that the original author appears to have attempted this, here; I'd be inclined to take that as a G7 Speedy Deletion (Author request) and install the redirect, but want more input here. No need for a full AFD if we can accomplish the same with a minimum of fuss. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VDIM came out ~10 years after ESC and has some additional features. Some people might find the additional information useful, but I doubt very many care or would notice. ESCVDIM (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I agree to just add a redirect.ESCVDIM (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect is my 2 cents, as I had done the redirect earlier. I recommend redirecting to the main article on ESC; moreover I suggest the same be looked at for StabiliTrak. It sounds indeed like a G7 Speedy Deletion, author request, so this can be done simply. There is agreement among all contributors both on the talk pages and here. Thanks for your help. MTan355 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interweb

AfDs for this article:

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

Well, here we are, 18 months later, and the article, if anything, has gotten worse, not better. I think this reinforces my point that the article is not likely to ever become more than it is now, and what it is now is a dictionary entry.

Now, before we get into the same old arguments, let me stipulate a few things:

Yes, the article as it stands now is "more than just a dicdef". But dictionary definitions are not what is cautioned against by WP:NAD. Dictionary entries are, and dictionary entries can include much more than a simple definition. Comprehensive dictionaries include extensive etymology and lists of notable uses. There is quite literally nothing in this article that wouldn't be just as appropriate in a comprehensive dictionary.
Whether or not Wiktionary would include this content is irrelevant; Wiktionary is not the only dictionary in existence, nor, oddly enough, is it the most comprehensive dictionary in existence. All that matters is that the content is what would properly belong in a dictionary.
Original Research is not really an issue here, nor is notability. Although the number of citations is very low, I think notability is well established, and there really is no text here that takes such a logical leap as to risk being original research.

Powers ^T 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete Nominator argument appears basically sound. Lots of WP:OR and it's basically a dictionary definition followed by a random list of stuff. Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both dictionary defs and lists of pop culture in this form are discouraged by WP (WP:IPC). As it stands this article is little more than an acknowledgement of a humorous word, and hardly encyclopaedic. DB 103245^talk 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see how this can be a suitably encyclopedic topic. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Granted, I added the link to September That Never Ended. The IPC section alone should go, and that might help, as it does suitably describe the term, but to be blunt, this is better off living on Wiktionary if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's really nothing here that makes this an encyclopedia article. It's just an arbitrary list of places that a somewhat popular neologism has been used. It might as well be called List of media works that have used the word "interweb".-Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneer

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

As I said in my prod, this article could illustrate a dictionary definition for what a WP:DICTDEF article looks like. I think it's unlikely there's much else to say about the concept of a "sneer". Prod was removed with the summary: "I think fiacial expressions are encyclopedic, so this can become a better article", which seems like poor logic to me (and the current text is virtually identical to when the article was created four years ago). Propaniac (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only those articles that can never become more than definition stubs should be deleted as dictionary definitions. This subject is easily capable of being expanded; Charles Darwin devoted a whole chapter to it in The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. So there is more to say about the subject, even if no one has finished it yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly expanded the article, adding information from Darwin's book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Recent edits by Ihcoyc bring article just over the bar. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, gee, pardon me for not being intimately familiar with the entire text of Charles Darwin's The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. I've now read the linked chapter (p. 249-253) and while it certainly helps, I'm still not convinced that it's enough to establish that there is sufficient material for an encyclopedia article on this topic; the article can't simply paraphase Darwin's observations. If there are other sources brought forth that can add something to the discussion, I'd be more convinced. (If there is no other such source, the idea that "Well, since Darwin did it, theoretically someone else could write four pages about parts of the world in which he's observed people sneer" is obviously inadequate.) Propaniac (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are other sources! https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00992469 for one. Narayanese (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The abstract doesn't use the word "sneer"; did you find this by looking for "expressions of contempt" or something like that? Actually, it makes me think that Sneer should perhaps be merged/redirected to Contempt#Facial expressions, a page I hadn't looked at before; that section seems already to be largely about sneering. Propaniac (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant the article, not the abstract. But yes, sneer and facial expression of contempt are the same topic. A merge could go in the other direction as well or better though. Narayanese (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it appears I can only see the abstract, not the article, so if you're expecting me to consider the article without basing it on the abstract, you'll have a problem there. Propaniac (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm all for removing dictionary entries masquerading as encyclopedia articles, but in this case it seems there are sufficient sources that discuss the facial expression itself (versus the word "sneer") to justify keeping this stub article. Powers ^T 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. We find no discussion by the nominator on the article's talk page. He should please familiarise himself with WP:BRD and WP:BEFORE so that he may waste less of our time. (*_*) Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't going to reply, but this is really rude. There's nothing in either of those linked guidelines that would have changed my mind about nominating the article. I was being "bold" by trying to delete the article because I felt that it was unimprovable (and looking up a list of books that use the word "sneer" did not convince me that there was any worthwhile information about sneering). As for WP:BEFORE, I reviewed the article's history and saw it hadn't been improved in the last several years. I looked for a good merge/redirect target and couldn't find one. I assumed that anyone interested in discussion would have commented on the Talk page when the prod came up, and neither the prod-remover nor anyone else since the article was created had contributed any discussion; I suspect (maybe I'm wrong?) that no one producing sources here would have seen a Talk page note if I'd left one, and if they were aware of the page, perhaps they could have improved it sometime in the last four years instead of now. Maybe I wasn't able to find sources that exist, but there's no call for that kind of condescension and assumption of bad faith. Propaniac (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree; this nomination was not prima facie out of line and easily supportable with the available information. Powers ^T 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither the article nor the topic qualifies as a deletable/mergeable dicdef. For the record, I think this particular nomination was an assualt (an incredibly rude act) on all those who took the time to start the article and all those who have contributed to it over a number of years. The excuse that it's been around and there's no recent sign of improvement goes against the second rule ever dreamed up for wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Historical archive/RulesToConsider: Always leave something undone. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really ridiculous; if this AFD nom was "an assault", so is virtually every other AFD nom. The referenced "rule" makes no sense in this context, and little sense in any context (should I assume that every inadequate article is intentionally left inadequate? Should I avoid ever trying to improve an article myself, so that someone else can make the improvement?) If you'd like to discuss this further please leave it on my Talk page instead of here. Propaniac (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAfD Nominations don't grant the nominators extra power or authority over any other editors. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes? That's true? If you're referring to my request, I'm sure most people (clearly not all) would agree that this page is not the best venue for you to attack me for nominating the article, instead of discussing the merit of the article itself. I can respond better on my or your Talk page. But do as you wish. Propaniac (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information out there about every facial expression, to warrant articles for them. Please search for references before nominating something. And if you are willing to admit your mistake, you can just stop arguing with people, and withdraw your nomination. Dream Focus 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did "check for sources," as I have stated; apparently I have higher standards than others, because I don't feel that a list of books that use a word is a list of good sources for discussing the meaning and context of the word (although I'm sure noting that some people think cats sneer is a valuable addition to the general knowledge). If the article had been in its current state when I came upon it, I probably would not have nominated it, but I still don't think it's a good article and I doubt it will be significantly expanded. As I said above, a merge/redirect to Contempt#Facial expressions seems the most logical outcome, but barring that I would rather delete the article than keep it, even if I'm the only one unconvinced it will flourish. Propaniac (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note We should be able to express our opinions without heaping excessive criticism upon the nominator. The nomination was done in good faith, and that ought to be enough. Powers ^T 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the point of "calling this a waste of time" was to critize the nominator personally. It was simply to fend off AfD's of other articles in Category:Facial expressions and other stuby articles whose topics aren't dicdef's. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of strange diversions here into attacking me personally instead of simply stating whether or not the article should be kept or deleted and why. But I'm not seeking to drag such tangents out further. Propaniac (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for writing contemptible things was to play off the subject matter. After all, this AfD is about the concept of a Sneer. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Simonm223. I think it's notable enough to bedeserving of an article anyway, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Really? Remove the sneer. What's next, removing Sarcasm. You won't be leaving me with many options, how am I supposed to communicate? (Real reason: High EV) Nezzadar (speak) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThisIsLike

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

non notable website Ddloe (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the website is not notable. It's 2 years old, it's used by thousands of people for all kinds of purposes – from finding art grants to learning more about Cote d'Ivoir toxic dump in 2006, it's been noted by such reputable publications as ReadWriteWeb (see reference in the article), several bloggers around the world. There is also an original idea behind it. I don't know that much about the rules of Wikipedia yet – should I invite the website's users to contribute here on this page? Also, @Ddloe – on the same day you proposed to delete two other articles – on MobileSpin.Net and Welluma.Com for the same reason. If you look them up on Alexa you'll see that they don't have nearly the same positions as ThisIsLike. You also used the number of hits on Google to see whether it's notable or not, well, first of all, if you just Google thisislike it gives about 800 000 results, if you just google http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athisislike.com it gives 454 000 pages. For a website, where all content was manually entered by editors, I find it's a bit offensive to say it's not "notable". DeeMeeTree (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (CET)

Delete - ThisIsLike has 1,680 to 2,380 hits on Google (+"thisislike" -site:thisislike.com), not 800,00 or 454,000. No articles on gNews, gScholar, or gBooks. Deleting a Wikipedia article is not an attack on the subject of the article. ThisIsLike appears to be a very useful site. However, Wikipedia has guidelines for notability which requires that the subject receive significant coverage is reliable secondary sources. The site has not received such coverage, and is thus considered non-notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Creator and primary editor has COI (not a reason to delete, just figured I should note it), fails WP:WEB. — neuro 11:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, I should say that I looked at the guidelines for notability before posting the article. And I didn't know that 2000 mentions on other websites (as you pointed out above) is not enough for something to be considered "notable". In fact, lots of articles on Wikipedia have less mentions and in sources with much less credibility, should we delete them too? When I said 800 000 I meant that's how many pages there are, which just shows you how much people worked on it. I understand that it doesn't matter either, the only credible thing is to be mentioned in the popular press, right? But then, ReadWriteWeb is one of the leading technology blogs, 3rd biggest one to be precise, syndicated by The New York Times. If that's not enough, I don't know what is. DeeMeeTree (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (CET)

You may wish to have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a commonly accepted Wikipedia norm. It states that each article should be judged by its own merits at AfD, and should not be contingent on the existence of other articles. If you do not believe certain other articles belong here, you are free to nominate those for deletion. GlassCobra 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Super-Absolutely-Unequivocally-Irrevocably Strong Delete. Does not follow WP:NPOV. No introduction. Page will be tagged.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 10:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the added superlatives don't give your statement any more weight. What matters is strength of argument. GlassCobra 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Neurolysis and Odie. COI concerns, no significant claim of notability to clear WP:WEB. GlassCobra 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Could you please show me exactly what your "notability" concerns are? The website complies with both the 1st and the 3rd criteria of WP:WEB. ThisIsLike's content is being distributed on such notable websites as WayToRussia.Net (which has the audience of more than 1.5 Mln and is the most popular online travel guide to Russia recommended by Lonely Planet and BBC) and is used for research on various news items by journalists. The sources that wrote about it are some of the most notable on the web for this thematics. The idea of ThisIsLike – people-powered associative search - is new and original, you won't find any other service that offers the same thing and ReadWriteWeb article mentioned it as well. --DeeMeeTree (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Please only make a bolded vote one time. GlassCobra 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me what to do and what not to do. Who are you? --Dmitri (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AHEAD (web application)

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

non notable web application Ddloe (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious advertising: a web application empowering creative people to playfully easy layout, share, and present high resolution rich media content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I think I cleaned out most of the spam there, but I'm still uncertain about notability at this point. MuZemike 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American combat judo and jujitsu

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

Non-notable organisation, written like a sales pitch, Nate ^t/_c 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization revolves around the teachings of its founder, and we have no article on that person. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Blanchardb. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV psuedospam -Drdisque (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heath High School shooting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James v. Meow Media

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

Redundant with information in Heath High School shooting. The lawsuit, which was decided on narrow grounds of Kentucky state law, isn't independently notable. Numerous factual errors in description of case to boot. (Disclosure: a former employer was counsel to one of the defendants.) THF (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator states, it doesn't appear to be independently notable relative to content already at Heath High School shooting. The articles could be merged if there is salvageable material, or it can just be redirected. Peacock (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable enough of a case by itself, but the talk pages really need to be smerged. 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Heath High School shooting per Peacock. GlassCobra 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons Family

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

The vast majority of the text is transcribed from the articles Gene Simmons, Shannon Tweed and Kiss (band). The only original text I can see is the write-up of the TV series, which I think if retained at all, it should be moved to the TV series article - although it needs a rewrite first. DB 103245^talk 11:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to dab page, and merge the non-notable entries to Gene Simmons Family Jewels. As this family has several notable members, this would eliminate content duplication. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Simmons family" is not an appropriate dab name. Just delete it, there's hardly anything salvageable.--Atlan (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaba, Lord Shiva Temple

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

Implicitly contested prod. Unreferenced and potentially controversial assertion; looks like original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

and the entire list of contributions of Kaushal irm (talk · contribs), which all revolve around this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've redirected the prodded duplicate Kaaba(Shiva Temple) to this article, since this one was AFD'd. MuffledThud (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is some material about this idea online, but most of it seems highly speculative and dependent upon unusual interpretations of existing religious texts. If WP:RS can be cited, then there's a slim possibility of a keep, so best to give the author time to find some. MuffledThud (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV pushing, no WP:RS about theory. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as conspiracy theories go, this isn't notable. -SpacemanSpiff 18:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Truth About Success

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

Contested proposed deletion. Appears to fail general notability guidelines, as I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The author removed the proposed deletion with the edit summary, "I intend to update page with reviews of the book from legitamate resources" - and whilst I would encourage them to do so, I am unconvinced that such sources can be found. The current article is very promotional, and for this current book release (Oct 6 2009), it is serving to advertise the book. Chzz ► 11:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious advertising. I also have my doubts about the notability of Garrison Wynn. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the kind of text that would be written on the book's back cover. Nothing that points to any notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is kept, it needs to be completely rewritten because it is just advertising as it currently stands. Peacock (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to defend this page. I know the author, I have read the book and I wrote every work of the article, trying very hard not to sound like jacket-copy. The book is a brand new release this week, Mr. Wynn is just now doing radio interviews and I expect to see at least local reviews soon. I promise to update the page with references and reviews as soon as they appear. The book is published by McGraw-Hill, a reputable publisher, with plans to publish future books by Mr. Wynn. I understand that there would be questions about his (and the books) notability, which is why I made both pages as short and sweet as I could. If you search Mr. Wynn on Google, you will find 17 full pages that reference his work and activities. I hope that you will give me some time to develop more content for these pages, and you will see by my other work that I've chosen important and significant people and issues to write about. Thanks so much for your time.I'm Nonpartisan 03:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)

Delete The book has apparently just been published; only 4 WorldCat libraries list it. it is not yet notable. I doubt the author is either, as he has essentially no other publications & otherwise only two minor film roles. The discussion above is essentially an appeal to use Wikipedia for promotion of a book that at best is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenie Niarchos

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

Non-notable individual lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to throw my hat in the "keep" ring for a change. I'll concede notability on the basis of non trivial mention in The New York Times and Vogue. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Keep. She's a notable jewelry designer and the article has good references. --ACRSM 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete. She is moderately famous but is she notable? As a jewelry designer I would say not to justify more than the brief mention in Repossi (what NY Times ref is about), and where "Czarina" content can be merged. Her fame is in most part inherited from her grandfather/family (see Time Mag ref about shipping). Refs 1,5 are quite trivial (best dressed lists), and even Vogue Paris is in the same broad category but longer (only saw web copy though). Is she notable as a socialite for the way she dresses? Not really convinced, but maybe there is potential for increased future performance in this area (only reason for "weak" non-vote). Antipastor (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial coverage, no evidence of actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hits and sources in the article are trivial mentions. Notability is not equal to fame. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Farve

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

Hmm, I really dont know where to start,besides living long she hasnt done anything notable.She was the world's second oldest woman,second oldest African American, second oldest person born in Georgia.Mchappy93 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont wanna hear about her voting for Obama since Gertrude Baines also voted for Obama, anything she was or did so was gertrude Baines,even the Guinness book of records doesnt mention second place and because all of her accoplishments were second place, she shouldn't have an article.65.0.20.215 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This AfD was malformed. It is fixed now and relisted. This should be considered the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Tim Song (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are independent sources to establish notability, although I don't know if they actually checked the census records. Racepacket (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most other Supercentarians have articles -Drdisque (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those supercentenarians are the oldest of something and Beatrice Farve isnt the oldest of anything, Gertrude Baines was born in the same state as Beatrice Farve. 74.249.149.92 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

TNM (video game)

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

I think that this article has little notability connected to it, the article states that this was created by a well known sportscaster and I do not feel that is enough to establish the notability of the article. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 09:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a speedy candidate under WP:N, but at least there's a claim there. But no evidence to back it up. Get Dumb 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--WillC 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable I also can't find significant coverage for this video game.

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gender equality lawsuits

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

Weird mix of landmark cases and marginally notable cases and non-notable cases. Some are gender equality, some are freedom of association, some list the wrong court. Create a category. THF (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - ~~I could see the benefit of such a list, although I would organize it by jurisdiction instead of alphabetically.~~ A category would not even show the deciding courts. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikitable is sortable. Clicking on the heading "Court of decision" organizes it by jurisdiction. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that almost all of them are Supreme Court of US or the equivalent, it would seem almost all belong in Wikipedia and on the list. We have considered every SC case at least in the last century or so worth an article. (I think they all are, but there's an argument that some of the early ones are trivial). As usual, there should be both a list and a category. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable list, if there's issues with it we fix those, not delete the whole list. Fences&Windows 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of class action lawsuits

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

Necessarily incomplete (there are thousands of class actions filed every year) and out-of-date list that should be a category at best. Half of the class actions listed aren't even encyclopedically notable. THF (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine per WP:CLN, and I see no redlinked or non-linked entries. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Half of the class actions listed aren't even encyclopedically notable"? Then nominate those blue links for deletion, and let others comment on them, since somebody apparently thought that they were notable. What I see here is a perfectly legitimate list of class actions for which we have blue-linked articles. I would hope that this somewhat uninteresting list becomes something more than a duplicate of a category, the obvious addition being what the subject of each suit might be-- deadly pain patches? phone service overcharges? uncomfortable mattresses? etc. In any event, WP:CLN applies. Categories are generally useless unless they include a list to refer to, although the people who like categories seem to have an evangelist's zeal when it comes to saying, "There is no other way but our way". Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is appropriate. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, as does this particular list, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. But there should be a category as well--categories have the advantage that items will automatically be added to them. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more sources and to state the inclusion criteria, but this is a good way to provide more organizational detail than a category. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Curtain

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

This was originally tagged as {{db-test}}, but I removed the speedy because this is clearly not a test.

I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this term, which fails WP:NEO and WP:DICT. Part of the page appears to be a copyvio of http://www.awakeningonline.org/index.php?pageType=sub&pageID=142, so I have removed that content. Cunard (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. It was my speed delete tag, by the way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Price

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

Non-notable musician Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The statement "these CDs have received extensive radio airplay" may meet WP:BAND criterion 11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network") but has no citations and therefore cannot be trusted. Other than that note, the article does not meet the general notability guidelines at WP:N or any of the criteria at WP:BAND. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Please take note that Anne Price is a well established musician on the local New York folk scene, and her entry should not be deleted. Here are references documenting recent radio airplay:

WFDU Traditions playlist

WJFF Ballads and Banjos playlist

WCVF General Eclectic playlist

WMCB Music of the People playlist

WXOJ Sing About It playlist

WRFG Fox's Minstrel Show playlist

Suffet (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Steve Suffet[reply]

Additional references to establish notability:

Woody Guthrie Foundation public programs

Eisteddfod NY Festival of Traditional Music performers list

Folk World CD review

Rambles CD review

Village Records blurb

Songs of Freedom Cable TV program - Bowery Poetry Club

New England Folk Festival schedule

The Child Ballads Project

Women in Music, Inc. newsletter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffet (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RadioIndy CD reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffet (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffet (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Steve Suffet[reply]

Note - none of the above radio stations appear to be national. Still does not meet WP:BAND. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely evidence of significance (see above and article). --Firefly322 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Here's a video of Anne Price (yellow shirt, blue cap) performing with Pete Seeger in New York City on October 4, 2009. Ecofest video

Suffet (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Steve Suffet[reply]

- response - please note that notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" it by working with a notable person. Also note that I have stricken your second !vote, since you already took a "do not delete" stance. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It appears that the keep votes are correct - she appears to be a well-established local performer in a genre that doesn't attract a tremendous amount of reliable source attention. I suspect that a pop singer of this level would have an article, however, I really can't find reliable sources to support her one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources provided by Suffet (talk · contribs) are all mentions in unreliable sources, such as press releases. I have done several searches for sources on Google News Archive and have been unable to find articles that provide significant coverage about Anne Price. Because this a WP:BLP that has no sources, it should be deleted due to the lack of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ext2. MuZemike 04:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E2compr

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

DELETE. Contested prod, yet this driver is not notable in the slightest. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7) - article does not assert notability. I note also it's suggested it be merged with ext2, which I wouldn't see any problem with providing that someone with the relevant knowledge can indicate it's appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the criteria for CSD A7. A7 does not apply to software. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. The merger should cut the content in half. Wikipedia is not Linuxopedia. Miami33139 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ext2 along with the additional references that have been added to this article since it was nominated for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can find significant coverage for this software, Dr. Dobb's for example [28]. Multiple third party sources can be found and make this software, by definition, notable. The nominator fails to provide compelling reasons for deletion. Not being familiar with the topic I do not have a strong opinion, I simply like to ask on what grounds this article should be deleted? Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 23:44, 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, Sandstein 06:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added reference seems notable. There are 11 results when I click the link to Google Book search at the top of the AFD. If its listed in all the reference manuals, including links to its website even, then its notable. Just as you can list every single species of plant and animal there is, without having to prove it has notable coverage(the guidelines only a suggestion, not a policy/law, and it even saying to use common sense at the top of their pages), so it is with every file commonly used with an operating system. Its notable enough to be mentioned in reference manuals, just as some rare species of bug or weed would be mentioned in a book for that sort of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of everything, and should be complete. Dream Focus 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reading that paragraph, I do not see how it shows notability--it seems to be saying just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to ext2. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc

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

This software article was had PROD removed. It is not notable, makes no claim to be notable, and existing references from the publisher merely show that it exists. Wikipedia is not a software directory. As an alternative to deletion, this could be reduced to a single sentence in the GNU Emacs article. Miami33139 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the deletion template on the page shows a redlink to this discussion, even though I cleared my cache and it does bring the user to this page. I don't know templates well enough to monkey around with the code, though.--otherl left 15:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#rcirc. The Linux.com article [29] is a valid source per WP:RS and I think it goes a long way towards establishing notability for this subject. If the article is to remain a sub-stub however, it would seem to be more appropriate to simply add any relevant information to the tables in the comparison article and redirect there as we already do for many other clients. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the name "rcirc" is used for other things as well, many false results keeping popping up when searching the news and books. But if Linux.com has an article about it, that does indicate notability. And if the software was good enough to be included as GNU Emacs, that adds to its notability. Dream Focus 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since " It is the standard client for IRC in GNU Emacs." There is no reason to merge; it would be better to add information based on the review mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, if the article is going to remain a sub-stub though and not be expanded, then a merge/redirect would at least give the reader more information. GNU Emacs actually includes a number of built-in clients (as the Linux.com review mentions) including ERC (IRC client) which is also currently at AfD due to this same mass-nomination of articles. I'm already looking at several of these AfDs from the same mass-AfD batch that have closed as delete for basically no reason other than the nom and a few per-noms even though a merge/redirect would have been much more appropriate (and was suggested). --Tothwolf (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish why exactly this product is notable. It also fails to demonstrate non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme, give it a break already, your games are getting old.
  The WP:GNG states:
  ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."
  ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."
  --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ascending power numbers

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

Contested prod. I don't doubt that those numbers exist, but I can't find any sources that call it an "ascending power number". It thus fails WP:V and WP:N at the very least. Tim Song (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect if there is appropriate target, if not, delete This looks like the kind of game or trivia remedial math teachers use to put an interesting spin on numbers. Things like this are common in riddles, too. If we have an article on this topic, this could go there - with a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MathWorld discusses them in its article for narcissistic numbers. ISBN 9780821848074 documents these numbers, without giving them a name, on pages 51 and 95, noting that "there seems to exist only nine numbers [greater than 9] satisfying this property". Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that, but...are we supposed to call it "unnamed numbers" or something? I can't find any WP:RS actually giving it a name. Tim Song (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor could I. I think we have to do as the sources do: Discuss these as a minor addendum to narcissistic number. And yes, I agree that part of the problem here is that someone just invented a name for these things from whole cloth, then it was redlinked, then someone grew this bad article in order to recolour that redlink. Uncle G (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly a pretty minor concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to narcissistic number#Related concepts as the second source refers to them by this term. It would be nice to have this as a standalone article, but there's not enough here to stand alone, and I'm not sure if there is sufficiency of gain in merging vis-à-vis redirection (would the addition of the examples mess up the format?). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, which source are you referring to? Tim Song (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second source listed at the bottom of the article itself.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source says that this kind of numbers is mentioned in Mathworld's article on narcissistic number; it is, but not given a name in there either. This kind of number has a mention in narcissistic number already. But since apparently this name is made out of whole cloth and there's nothing to merge, I don't see the need to make this a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge. This is a legitimate spinoff of narcissistic number, an article which seems to be maintained by a narcissist who writes for his/her fellow mathematicians instead of members of the ignorant masses like me. This one at least is written in plain English, which is something we aim for in an encyclopedia. In that article, the "sophisticated" description of ascending power numbers is "(sequence A032799 in the OEIS) : $n=\sum _{i=1}^{k}{d_{i}}^{i}\,.$ ". Yeah, thanks Einstein, I see what you mean. Somehow, I don't think that the narrative in this article would survive long, given the smarter-than-thou attitude found in the other article. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a legitimate spinoff. The main problem with narcissistic number is that this kind of article appeals mostly to non-mathematicians, but this one is written using $\sum$ notation and almost no examples, making it almost impossible for non-mathematicians to read it. This problem is easily fixed; in fact I will do it right now. Narcissistic numbers are somewhat notable, but "ascending power numbers" are not. Even putting them under the title "ascending power numbers" seems to be original research: An attempt to coin a name for these numbers, and a poor one too – ~~not too surprising, since the original author seems to have trouble with the English language ("when added up, it will equal of the original number")~~. Hans Adler 08:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think narcissistic number should be easier to understand now. I don't agree that "sequence ... in OEIS" is a problem, if that was implied above. This is simply a reference to an encyclopedia. I would have expanded the abbreviation the first time it appears, but the abbreviation is in a template, and the template doesn't seem to support this. Hans Adler 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the rewrite by Hans. I think it strikes the tough balance in making something that can be appreciated by mathematicians, and understood by persons who are curious about mathematics. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per Uncle G. The title is a neologism, and there is no suitable title. Narcissistic number already discusses the topic in adequate detail, but we can add the two examples to it. That's too trivial to be a copyright problem, so we can simply delete this stub rather than preserve it and continue to push this neologism. Hans Adler 09:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been somewhat doubtful about us creating articles based only on OEIS. In this particular case, since the only source I have seen for the title of the article seems is a geocities page, I would say there is no need for a redirect. Thus I feel that simply deleting this article is the simplest option. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons pointed out above. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Narcissistic numbers are barely notable; these are not. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. neil sloane's encyclopedia of integer sequences (the only potentially reliable source for the article) is not generally considered to be evidence of notability. direct evidence of notability should generally include sources in the proper mathematical literature. i have noticed that the requirements for number theory are generally much lower, but they at least include posts in well-regarded usenet forums (apparently). this article has none of the above. Le Docteur (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:There are two references given, one is self published and the other, OEIS, is indiscriminate about what it includes, so notability is not established. Neither one gives a name to the numbers, that appears to be a result of OR in the "Narcissistic number" article. At best the OEIS entry means it should have a mention in "Narcissistic number" but its already got one.--RDBury (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Love (song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bye Bye Love (song)

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

Does not have enough information, no official statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherBSB (talk • contribs)

Speedy Deletion this article is not properly sourced and nothing is known about the release. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Neither of these are appropriate criteria for speedy deletion. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom (no sources proving it's the next single, and source for philippines chart is dubious). This could be speedy'd. SKS (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the event this article winds up being kept, it should be moved to Bye Bye Love (Backstreet Boys song) as this is not the most famous song by this title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The linked chart info is a compilation of radio-station charts. If it's a keep, name should be changed per Metropolitan90. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. The added sources show that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis F.C.

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

Contested prod. Does not meet notability guidelines. Amateur club lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - previously played in the League of Ireland, a national league and the highest level of football in that country. TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the highest level league in the country and reached the final of the most prestigious knock-out tournament in the country, seems notable enough to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - previously played in the League of Ireland - which is a (the) national football league in Ireland. DavidDublin (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'd be VERY surprised if their FAI Cup final appearance didn't generate any meaningful media coverage at the time. Bettia (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at a high enough level of football to be deemed notable. Giant Snowman 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable as an Irish club can be Spiderone 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As described above. Govvy (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable given FAI final apperance etc Steve-Ho (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article still lacks any references to this final appearance. Without those references, notability just cant be demonstrated. RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two references to The Times added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - .....along with two others not relating to the cup final appearance. Article clearly passes the GNG by a country mile -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just added another two, making six sources from reliable, independent, third-party publications. Suggest nominator withdraws -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good work Chris. In any case, though refs are needed to meet WP:GNG, that is just a guideline and it is open to the Community to determine that a page is notable without them. This nomination is a Dead Parrot. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in the Irish Cup final. --Carioca (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - I think this one is pretty clear. matt91486 (talk) 01:18, 10 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 Ugh, fine. Let it rot in its unsourced, crappy state for all I care. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grayson

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

Dubious notability, almost no sources, spammy tone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertorial unless someone wants to clean it up and show that there's substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly quite notable in several ways, top gscholar cites 862, 313, 182 ... . Chairman of U. S. Price Commission redlink /= unimportant. (Nixon's wage & price controls are somewhat forgotten) About 700 gbooks and gnews hits, many RS's, e.g this NYT story on his commission appointment. (Better searching on "Jackson Grayson")John Z (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't really don't understand how someone can read that article and conclude that Grayson is not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of a red link commission? Spammy tone that nobody could be arsed to fix? Come on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went by this "C. Jackson "Jack" Grayson, Jr. (born October 8, 1923) is the hairman of APQC:[1], dean of two business schools, head of the U.S. Price Commission (1971), a farmer, newspaper reporter and FBI agent, Dr. Jack Grayson embodies the pursuit of lifelong learning. In 1977 he founded APQC as a private sector, non-profit organization to help American business improve productivity and remain globally competitive. In the mid-1990s Grayson focused his attention on helping education institutions restructure academic and administrative processes by identifying, adapting, and implementing best practices. Today he continues to champion productivity and quality improvement within all types of public and private organizations around the globe." ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article history, one could chose to revert back to a more basic non-spammy version. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is incomplete and topic coverage is determined by the interests of editors, a red link is not indicative of non-notability. And a spammy tone is not reason for deletion unless the entire article is irredeemable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Time magazine doesn't write about nobodies. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then can someone help me clean it up? I can't do all that myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That's why we have article improvement tags. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Street

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

Denied prod from a bit ago.

I could not find third party reliable sources which go into depth on Greg Street. I.e., I believe he fails the standard of inclusion in Wikipedia, notability. Izno (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - He's the systems design lead on the biggest top-shelf MMO in the Western market; he's pretty much as important in the field of MMO design as it's possible to get. He meets WP:CREATIVE criteria 1, 3 and 4 (no small achievement!) and should be kept. Which leaves the issue of sources. There are plenty of reliable sources; I think your issue may be that many of them are largely dedicated to coverage of WoW (which is exactly where you'd expect to find mention of him), such as here and here. But looking further afield, there's coverage at Gaming Shogun, azzor.com, Metro.co.uk, play.tm, and Kotaku. Also a huge amount of coverage on reliable, dedicated news sites like wowinsider.com. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the exact problem though, as there's nothing that's solely about him. Everything's about WoW...On a side note, wow.com=wowinsider.com --Izno (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's of itself a problem. You don't find much coverage of Harper Lee that doesn't discuss her in the context of her sole creative work, To Kill A Mockingbird, but the impact and significance of that work in its field is of such high magnitude that there is no question that Lee herself gets an article. I'd argue that's the case here; WoW is so central to any contemporary discussion of MMOs and their design (and likely to be of continuing historical significance) that individual articles on its lead designers are merited. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction to make is that most news about Greg Street is about how Ghostcrawler said this or that on the boards. It pertains to the game and not him or his role at the company. I wonder if any essays exist out there that examine his job as a bridge between the company and the playerbase. When it comes to class balance issues, he's pretty much it. Or at least, he's the one that forum whiners always clamor for, and is blamed for when things go wrong. The articles you linked to about either the games or about class changes, not about him. --gakon5 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I understand it, you're claiming that we wouldn't have an article on a newsreader just because the news they read is notable, and that the same situation applies here. But I don't think that's a good analogy; this "newsreader" is directly involved in the creation of the "news" they're reading. Ghostcrawler talking about WoW is exactly what we'd expect, seeing as Ghostcrawler is one of those responsible for creating and maintaining WoW; it's the same sort of situation as where you'd see coverage of a CEO focused on him talking about his company, or the author of a book talking about their writing. Coverage OUTSIDE that context could really rise no higher than personal gossip. To put it another way - is anyone arguing this man DOESN'T have a major role in setting the course for the highest-profile Western MMO in history? Is anyone arguing that in the field of MMO design, decisions made by Greg Street AREN'T considered noteworthy by his peers? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd like him to have an article too. I don't argue his importance to this game, as a former WoW-player and message board-frequenter. Most news items about him regard his own reporting on class changes, and most interviews with him regard details on games (like the announcements of Wrath/Cataclysm). Those don't tell you anything about him. Here's a useable interview: [30] Greg talks a bit about his past working on Age of Empires III, and his roles in the company. Even then, this is him talking about himself, and more about WotLK anyway; another source is needed to show that he is relevant to WoW. I'm sure WoW.com has written an editorial or two about him.

All that being said, I will say Keep, but more things need to be dug up on him as a person. --gakon5 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After digging through a year or so's worth of posts marked "Ghostcrawler" or "Greg Street" on WoW.com, I found the following which may be useful for the article:

About his work with Ensemble: [31][32]
About his role at Blizzard: [33][34]
About his hiatus from posting: [35]

His post on the WoW forums specifically points out that he is a developer, but takes a lot more time than other devs do to post on the boards and "engage the community directly", in his own words. --gakon5 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of expanding this article right now. --gakon5 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an amazing improvement. Fantastic work, Gakon5! - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd add a picture, but I want to make sure the article isn't deleted first. And can we dig up some birth info or his full name or something for the infobox? --gakon5 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open source picture here when you're ready for it. His middle initial appears to be T (link). Also, an interview with him from his time at Ensemble is here and also here although he doesn't give much personal info except that he used to be a marine biologist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was going to use, but I don't know that it's open source. Apparently the image comes from this page[36] on the Blizzard website, but it's been spread all over the internet. I'd call it Fair Use. (edit: Surely free photos exist of this guy.) --gakon5 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But I don't think the linked-in is an appropriate cite. It fails both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after much thought... Whilst I agree that there do seem to be a lack of sources about his non-World of Warcraft activities, he passes the requirements for notability as stated above. There is no harm in having a stub of a notable topic if that is all there is to the topic... --Taelus (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Taelus (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualmalaysia

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

Not notable, self-promotional UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Malaysian Ministry of Tourism if that page or an analog thereof exists. Otherwise delete as non-notable under WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines; I cannot find any appropriate reliable sources with significant coverage about this website Chzz ► 08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe site linked fails to work from this New Jersey based computer, and as Chazz said it isn't reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [37], [38], [39], [40] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my vote to keep if the article is updated to incorporate the material from these references you have identified and the citations are updated. The article's current contents are greatly lacking and it acts as a magnet for new articles by non-notable companies. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of hits in reliable sources on gNews. Not sure why you guys don't think it's notable. The reliability of the site in question is irrelevant, only whether the site has been covered by secondary reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but the article contains no such references. UncleDouggie (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should tag it as such. Just because the article is not FA doesn't mean we should delete it until it becomes FA. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Busch Gardens. redirecting but not merged as the content appears unsourced and there are are copyvio concerns Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howl-O-Scream (Williamsburg)

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

Similar to Howl-O-Scream_(Tampa_Bay), this is a completely unsourced article about a haunted attraction which does not establish notability. Merging may be appropriate, but this is certainly not a viable standalone article given the sources available. otherl left 02:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with the Tampa Bay one, despite the large amount of content there's nothing in the current article to found a claim of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk)
Delete or Merge and see if there is an article of notability left in the rubble. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see my comment on the deletion page for the Tampa HOS.--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:51, 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, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' if there are good primary sources to use to expand the details and if the tone can be made encyclopedic--see for example the paragraphs on "Shows" for 2008, which looks like a straight copy from their advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't considered the possible copyright issues.--otherl left 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable semi-spam with a side of copyright violation; should have done the same to the Tampa one. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If I'm reading this correctly, its just an annual event that occurs at the obviously notable Busch Gardens. So, we have verifiable content + a notable target = merge. Consider boldly doing the same with Howl-O-Scream (San Antonio) and Howl-O-Scream (Tampa Bay). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth and Janey

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

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes point 5, has three major label releases, which I've added the info for. Luminifer (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) keep - also passes 4 because of their tour with Leslie West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to find a citation for that one. Luminifer (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.iowarocknroll.com/inductee-details.php?id=104 here it says here they did some dates with West.Rockgenre (talkRockgenre 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
Keep - passes WP:BAND (at least two records on a major label) and has won a (presumably) significant award. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the erroneous claims of the three "keep" votes, this group had no major label releases. Their "significant award" was induction into this hall of fame. Piriczki (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Piriczki, no evidence of the supposed major record release, nor that the ones listed are major. That so-called hall of fame for some NN museum clearly is not significant. Triplestop x3 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did a tour with Leslie West so it passes four and it's only an opinion that the Iowan Rock and Roll hall of fame isn't significant.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 17:41, 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, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several citations just now. With articles about the band in Allmusic, The Gazette, and The Village Voice, the subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1, or the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article improvements by Paul Erik show they are notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik and Duffbeerforme and per WP:BAND criterion 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She (band)

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

Non-notable project of non-notable musician; full of OR and unsourced assertions. Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is a borderline case. The band meets WP:BAND#5 since they've release 2 albums on a (semi-)major label. Whether it meets WP:BAND#1 as well depends on if you consider Ningin.com to be a "non-trivial" published work, as Japan Times Online certainly is. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Pony Canyon is a major label in Japan. Meets WP:BAND. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, this needs a dablink pointing to S.H.E., since "She (band)" is a possible search term for that [much more widely-known] band. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Japan Times review establishes notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howl-O-Scream (Tampa Bay)

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

Several editors have tried valiantly to add sources to this article, but after removing the primary sources, the one with the dead link and the one that didn't actually say what the article suggested it did, it remains with nothing to establish its notability. I have previously suggested merging this with the other Howl-O-Scream articles, because they may be notable as a franchise, but there has been no consensus. otherl left 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems a shame to delete so much hard work but this article simply doesn't provide any basis for a claim of notability. If work could be done to highlight the notability I'd revisit my vote. I also wouldn't object to a merge to some other relevant article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event was named number 1 by Haunt World Magazine, and the article has as much potential as that of Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando).--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, maybe it can be written in a different from than to copy the same list of haunted houses over and over and over... Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to standardize haunted attraction articles, and you're welcome to participate!--otherl left 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sections for 2002 until 2007 on the HHN article are written in this form rather then the listing. It don't think it would be hard to rewrite the HOS article in this style.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to get this "article" sourced. A merge to the main article might work as well. Tavix | Talk 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The facts of an article such as this can perfectly well be sourced to primary sources connected with the event, which are reliable for routine details, so I do not see a problem with V. But I am not really convinced it & the other mentioned do not both fail NOT DIRECTORY, at least in their extremely expanded forms. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment There are times when it's appropriate to use primary sources? I respect your opinion on matters like this and would like to know more. My own view is that swamping an entry with primary sources (like this one was before I removed them) makes it much, much tougher to figure out if anything notable is being discussed.--otherl left 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bishop Charles Agyin-Asare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pack-Track

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

WP:COMPANY not met. Page created by company's founder. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition; all the Ghits I found are about the founder Andrew Streeter, not the company itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Further reading" has next to nothing to say about the company. No disinterested editors seem to actually be adding content. --JamesAM (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Wood (journalist)

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since he is apparently a television personality, WP:ENT may be relevant: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He seems from the article to have appeared on multiple shows, including currently as an anchor, which may satissfy this. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a journalist, and his acting career seems to consist of two trivial roles only. [41] DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llewela Bailey

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bath (presenter)

{

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Additionally, the article is pure nonsense such as "soon he was setting alight to Bradfor's Stadium and planting huge stores of Gasoline at Wimbledon's Plough Lane to get hard hitting stories, his bosses were oh-so-proud." raising strong WP:BLP issues. ƒ(Δ)² 08:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is full of nonsense, clearly a hoax. LOL has a huge fanbase in Andorra. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is real enough, someone has been playing in the article. No idea on notability of news readers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any sources that he actually exists? I would like to attempt to work on the article, but can't find sources that I know refer to him specifically (his name is quite generic). --Pink Bull (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [42] would probably not be deemed a reliable source, of that list though I would say that he is in the upper half on the 'fame' scale. ITV's own website has nothing on their news presenters at the moment. I'm sure that he has read the national news, which is where I recognised him from. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unscientific and not counting 'OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' etc. I did a little survey, of that list of 33 TV personalities, 18 of them have WP articles (including Richard Bath), of the missing ones nine get mentioned in programme articles. Some with articles appear to be regional only (certainly some I've not heard of before, I'm in Central England BTW). Mr Bath being a national and international (BBC world service from one of the images) newsreader seems to be at the more notable end of the scale. Leaning towards 'keep'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I think a presenter on a notable show would pass WP:CREATIVE #4 or WP:ENT #1, though I have little experience with these particular guidelines. His show Westcountry Live is apparently notable enough for Wikipedia at any rate. Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial coverage, barely can verify that he exists; "newsreader" in the most transparent of senses (hey, my Macintosh can read the news to you!) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:SOURCES.--LAA Fan 04:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Savage (American band)

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

Ok, looking at Lexis and Westlaw, this is the best I could find. In the end, it's still a band that had one hit song on the import charts over 20 years. I don't think this passes WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 'UK Import Chart' was a chart published in Kerrang magazine, and had no official status. I couldn't find a single source to back up the claim either, other than a claim by the band's singer in an interview. This is the only thing I found that verges on significant coverage in a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google News archives, and also searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage. charting is not an official national chart. no coverage of touring shown. no other notability suggested. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against future creation of an article that relies on reliable sources to verify that its subject meets notability guidelines for inclusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Groove Studios

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

Has been tagged for speedy for a day, seems like nobody wants to make the call. Recording studio doesn't appear notable, and is totally lacking reliable sources. Much of the article actually seems to be about a recording engineer as opposed to the studio. Seems like some notable acts have recorded there but notability is not inherited, rather it is established by coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this studio. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dashni Murad

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

Almost tagged as a speedy, but an internet search shows the person is a singer. However, the person has really done nothing that meets notability guidelines. Fails mainly WP:GNG LAA Fan^sign _review 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this she's a household name across Kurdistan. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The news article to which Phil Bridger refers is from Agence France-Presse and ran internationally (for example I found it in the Calgary Herald, Aug 28, 2009, p. A23). There is also this article about her. I'd err on the side of caution here, for someone who would most likely be written about mainly in foreign-language press; these two articles are a good start. Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per articles per WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I voted keep, I believe there were two articles from reliable sources. We now have only one. We need two to meet the "multiple" articles criterion of WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have rewritten the article based on the source that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Association for Distance Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBSL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sociedat de Lingüistica Aragonesa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endless Pools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vasilyev (writer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snak

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

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

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The burden for the references wasn't around for many years of Wikipedia's history. No one went back and added references to prove notability to the hundreds of thousands of articles that didn't have them before. Anyway, I search for it at the Google book search and Google news along with the word "Mac" and found plenty of coverage of it. Adding some to the article now. Please search a bit better before trying to delete something. Dream Focus 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just searching around the news and books you can see it mentioned in many places. I added what Cnet said about it, in an official review, that should be enough. Did anyone contact the article creator and tell them that the newer suggested guidelines say he should link to things proving its notable? He/she might've come and helped out. Dream Focus 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most popular IRC clients for the Macintosh platform. A suitable Google books search is: [43] It also receives good coverage in this book:
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "IRCing On The Macintosh: Snak". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 64 –&#32, 66. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Frugalytics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dos Gringos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Youssry

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

This author does not have anything published in a book, but only in web content. I think this article fails A7. LAA Fan^sign _review 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR--TM 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wikipedia's standards Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom is incorrect though, the author does have a book published in Arabic this and has in fact won some sort of award (Arabic source). But there are hardly any usable sources on her that I can find in either English or Arabic. She is mentioned in a couple for performing some poetry at a cultural festival but nothing about her that I can find. nableezy - 02:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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