Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 23

< 22 September	24 September >

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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Shires

(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 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete Olly the family dog? What are we coming to? Ahh, well...Delete, clearly fails this criterion (and all others), and the presence of the family dog isn't enough. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A TV presenter should not be that hard to find in Google News, yet all I could see there were articles about other people with the same name. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I was able to find this passing mention on Google News Archive. The rest of the sources are false positives. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon hypochlorite

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

PROD removed by anon, no reason given. Consensus at WikiProject Chemistry is that this chemical compound does not exist. The only mention of this chemical in the literature is an apparent indexing mistake. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite what the nominator claimed in the PROD earlier, the chemical reactions are completely plausible. After all, a silicon ion has a 4+ charge and each of the 4 hypochlorite ions has a - charge, for a total of 4-. Therefore, the total charge is 0, which is correct for an ionic compound. --75.10.48.19 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— User:75.10.48.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all compounds that are electrically-neutral actually exist. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reactions described are quite unrealistic. ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are they unrealistic? --75.25.102.229 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. A silly use of Wikipedia to "look smart." Some unmake-able compounds have attracted serious theoretical attention for specific reasons, but the list of unknown and unrealistic compounds is endless and their indiscriminate inclusion invites the use of Wikipedia as a platform for chemical games.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real chemical, per se notable - or merge with Hypochlorite. I found a legitimate source. I only have 18 credits in chemistry, so I am not an expert, but the article at least sounds plausible. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your source[1] would be considered WP:RS, and even whether the compound exists or not, with only 4 google hits I don't see how this compound would meet any of our notability criteria. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any evidence that this is a real chemical. ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a msg to that company requesting more information about this product of theirs. Will follow up here with any actual info they have. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have to do more than sound plausible, as this one does on the surface, they have to be verifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all are correct, it does not appear to be notable, so redirect or deletion may be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think it exists. If it did, then it would be very interesting and there would doubtless be some literature on it link. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why would it be any more interesting than any other compound? --75.25.102.229 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a classical silicate but has a formula similar to silicides, but paired with the electronegative ion hypochlorite.Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This chemical compound is not found in Chemical Abstracts, therefore it has never been mentioned in the scientific literature. It has never been made, and the reactions described in the article have never been reported. The entire content of the article is completely unverifiable and Wikipedia does not permit such articles. ChemNerd (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typos happen (and searching for a mispelt term can often find hits). There is no evidence that the topic is real, and good reason to think it is a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked SciFinder, which is a fairly comprehensive list of chemical compounds, and was unable to find this either by name or chemical-formula search. The only google hits are wiki-clones and the one vendor, who lists it as a generic list of related compounds. The hypochlorite is a strong oxidant (think "chlorine bleach") so that would be likely to react with a reducing agent like an active metal. Si⁴⁺ is not a strong oxidant, and sand (SiO₂) is used to smother active-metal fires, and it doesn't yield Si in the process. Even the cited ref apparently is just a book-index mention that doesn't resolve to any actual content at the given page? Without evidence it exists, is notably useful, or has been the subject of publications about it (even as of a theoretical interest), totally non-viable article. DMacks (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence it exists. Chris (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hard to see what this is even doing here at AfD. The compound doesn't exist outside of this contriutor's imagination. That means that the supposed chemistry is not simply unverifiable, it is made up. And now we're supposed to wait five more days to get it killed, just because of "Process"? Kill it now, and let's get on with writing an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the positive side, reading about silicon has refreshed my knowledge of inorganic chemistry! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. No evidence of existence - and it probably does not. Any solution containing ClO^- is strongly basic, and to think that there can be such a thing as Si⁴⁺ in such a solution is beyond ridiculous. WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 24 September 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 Speedied. This obviously is not, by any reasonable standard, an encyclopedia article. I have left an appropriate message on the creator's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sniper and Cranes

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

Essay comparing two short stories. ceranthor 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author admits it was a homework assignment. On the other hand, maybe it's not due until next week, in which case, call it a legitimate stub, put a "rescue" tag on it and see if someone can help this composition get an A+. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the article doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. ceranthor 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree (although I appreciate that you've called, correctly, that I should be more specific). I'd say it falls under G7 ("author requests deletion") or G3 (vandalism, since a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to be one's personal scratchpad for homework). I think that WP:SPEEDY needs to be used more often than it is, particularly when there's no reasonable doubt that an article is improper. Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither of those. It could meet a PROD tag, but I specialize in speedy deletion and therefore don't meddle in things I don't know too well. ceranthor 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR, on the fact that it is making an unsourced comparisons of two books. Personally, I think it could have got away with a WP:PROD... Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It's so obvious that it should be deleted, I don't think I even need a reason. But I'll say per Mandsford's reasons, whihc were absolutely brilliant. Is it okay if I add part of that quote to my userpage? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn't meet the CSD. ceranthor 23:07, 24 September 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) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtar (extraterrestrial being)

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

I don't see how notability can be established for this, as all the sources related to it seem to fail WP:RS. The idea, regardless, seems to be extreme WP:FRINGE and warrants, at most, a mention in the article on channelling. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and possibly include a mention in Mediumship. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Van Tassel. The "information", properly presented and cited, could be of great help in an understanding of Van Tassel but it doesn't seem to have any independent notability or merit. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems, to me, an intelligent merge proposal. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination is premature The article currently has a "construction" template in place and is being actively discussed on its talk page. It's my intention to add further reliable references later today or tomorrow, at which point a clearer idea of the article and its associated citation's potential merit can be established. Merging with the Van Tassel article (which itself is in a "questionable" state) is certainly not out of the question. Deconstructhis (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Deconstructhis is actively working on it I'm prepared to give him/her more time and have the debate relisted for a further week when it would otherwise expire. Otherwise my vote (merge) above stands. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Deconstructhis added the {{construction}} tag for their planned rewrite on 14 September 2009, see diff.—Ash (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is already the result of a major rewrite after a rename from Ashtar Galactic Command. The current article is not actually about the subject (Ashtar) but a list of UFO channellers based on their self published statements who have claimed to be in telepathic communication with Ashtar. Consequently the article is a misnamed unjustified content fork of contactee. The original Ashtar contactee case is covered in sufficient detail in George Van Tassel.—Ash (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge reliably sourced info to George Van Tassel. Some acceptable sources seem likely to be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is only one source but its quality is quite good -- you can read most of the chapter on this phenomenon in the Google Books preview. The article has the sorts of problems that usually arise when a long article is derived from a single source. I don't think there is much justification for keeping this as a separate article from George Van Tassel. Looie496 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I believe I found another source in James R. Lewis's encyclopedia at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements, under the name "Ashtar Command", but it will take a few days to get it. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) You probably mean James R. Lewis (1998), The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, Prometheus Books, ISBN 9781573922227 - as an encyclopedia this would be a tertiary source and such a summary is unlikely to result in significant revision of the article.—Ash (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I didn't say that it would. However, its inclusion there, and the description of it, does help establish notability, which was one of the points raised against the article in the nomination. The fact that the "command" is notable enough to be included in that source I think is sufficient to leave at least a redirect to the Van Tassel article in place. A redirect here may well stay as well, because redirects are so "cheap" and the subject may be found to in some cases be reasonably mentioned in the context of Xenu and other alleged extraterrestrials of UFO religions. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "John Carter" Your point is well taken. A fair bit has been made of the purported influences on Hubbard by purely "magical" organizations such as the OTO, much less in my observations in a relative sense, of the possible influences on Hubbard by early "flying saucer" groups centred on people like George Van Tassel and his peers. It's interesting to note that both men were active in "fringe" group activities in southern California in exactly the same time frame, mid 1940's to early 1950's, and both showed a decided inclination regarding looking toward the stars for their religious "inspiration". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added three more references to the article. I want to make it clear that I have not adamantly maintained at any point that this material must under all circumstances be situated in its own 'free standing' article. As reflected in the sometimes contentious exchange that has occurred on the article's talk page[2] (sections 15-19) between Ash and myself, I have focused on attempting to garner reliable sources to substantiate what the current version of the article is claiming, utilizing Helland's chapter in Partridge's book as a reliably sourced chronological framework to begin with. My intention has always been to add further reliable sources from the onset, as is made clear on the article talk page. My reticence in continuing to add sources beyond Partridge 2003 over the past several days is mostly as a result of Ash's insistence that Helland's chapter in Partridge that I utilized, did not itself constitute a reliable source, a position which I sincerely believe to be lacking in substance, when in my opinion references are easily obtainable that demonstrate that both Partridge and Helland are considered as authoritative on this subject by their academic peers, at least to the extent that both are cited by them in their own publications regarding the topic.[3] I've found this experience somewhat useful in many ways, as it has enabled me to take a fairly good look at what's actually out there in terms of mainstream sociology and history of religion academic sources pertaining to this rather novel subject area and will allow me to have a much better idea of how to improve a number of currently rather 'shaky' articles like Van Tassel's and others. What I'm trying to point out is that many of these rather fringe articles remain in a deplorable state in my opinion simply because they are either solely supplied with self published 'true believer' type references, or conversely, the subject matter itself is summarily dismissed out of hand by editors who fail to accept that there actually are literature sources within the mainstream social sciences that can (in some cases) provide useful and reliable material on these topics. It doesn't have to remain that way. I'm willing to abide by consensus on this issue, all I'm asking is that reliable sources be taken at face value for what they are, and that properly referenced material is not deliberately excluded from the encyclopedia simply because some editors choose to believe that, contrary to the evidence at hand, reliable sources on the subject matter do not in fact exist. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested parties may want to check out the discussion currently underway regarding the sourcing of this article going on at [4]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification) I have not challenged Helland and Partridge's authority, only whether the essay in Partridge's book was good as a secondary source as per WP:PSTS. My comments and repeated explanations and clarifications for Deconstructhis on the article talk page and the notice raised about the book at WP:RS/N make this clear.—Ash (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What isn't made clear however, is that Helland's treatment of the subject in the chapter goes beyond "collating" primary materials as you're contending on WP:RS/N, it extends into synthesis and commentary on the topic as well. What remains unanswered on the talk page, is despite the fact that Helland is cited by his peers in reliably published books as an authority on this specific subject[[5] you believe that his chapter in this book somehow exceeds the parameters of any authoritative secondary source author to collate, synthesize and comment on primary documents. Although it may be regarded as heavy handed by some, I believe that it is contextually relevant to point out that Ash has already maintained a position on the article's talk page that they regard the entire subject area itself as "rubbish" that should be "deleted from Wikipedia" and that "[c]consequently I'm probably not the right person to address POV"[6]. When challenged on the issue of the appropriateness, in terms of neutrality, of any editor actively working on material for an article while holding a position like this beforehand, I was told that I was "free to speculate, though I suggest you judge my edits instead." I offer this as an indication of how much of an 'uphill battle' this has been, in some instances, from the onset. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not selectively quote me out of context. I was rejecting a suggestion that I be the person to find better sources as any reader can see if they follow the diff. You are making the bad faith assumption that I cannot hold personal views on the subject and make NPOV edits. This is why I recommended examining my article edits (not talk page discussion) rather attempting to ~~defame~~ portray me as your evil nemesis by speculating in writing as to my personal motivation. You will note that at no point have I speculated as to your motivations. I do not understand why you think that making a personal attack on me helps your case. Your comments are not appropriate in this AFD discussion.—Ash (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, no "legal threats" implied or otherwise. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am obliged to replace "defame" with words that are less likely to be misinterpreted by Deconstructhis. I am attempting to comply with WP:NPLT.—Ash (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of purportedly channelled "beings". Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This is a fascinating story, and the story is told from a reliable source. Keraunos (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to WP:INTERESTING.—Ash (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears the article is cited, and reliable sources as well. I (as well as others) might find the subject itself ridiculous, but it appears to meet notability. Of course, I can't verify it (Or, too lazy to look up the books), but I don't see a problem with the reliability of the sourcing. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm torn between an outright merging of a fair bit of this material and its references directly into George Van Tassel, or simply letting it free stand as a separate article. I have reasons for both. Merging it will help substantiate the current version of Van Tassel, something that it really needs in my opinion. At present, "Ashtar", the figure Van Tassel's created, isn't even named in that article, despite the fact that I've been encountering solid references that indicate that of all of Van Tassel's "projects", Ashtar is in all likelihood the only one that's still around and has maintained and developed a relatively large following within the context of several different New Age groups, some of which actually have, again in a relative sense, fairly large followings. Which is why I'm partially drawn to letting the article stand on its own and create appropriate links. One of the problems I see in simply deleting these kinds of articles, is that encyclopedia users are then driven, in a sense, towards information available online that only tells one side of the story, the 'true believers' version. Why not put together articles that tell the whole properly referenced story. Other editors have pointed out that entire families of articles, "Theosophy" most prominently, are a mess of one sided information; they're absolutely right. In this case, in my opinion it's pure dereliction. Theosophy, in particular the subject of Blavatsky herself, has been studied over and over by mainstream historians and others, there's no excuse for how completely one-sided some of those articles are. In my opinion, the solution isn't reflexively deleting material, it's thorough referencing and good editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My own choice would be to place this content in Ashtar Galactic Command, with whatever additional material on the associated "group" might be available, because it can be seen to be more clearly about the "group" who credit the idea rather than just about the entity about whom the group is built. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Carter: I think I know where you're going with that, I considered something similar myself when the name of the existing article was up for debate on its talk page. What I gained an impression of when I started reading was that there are at least two (probably more) distinct organized representative groups who use "Ashtar" and "Command" in the name of their organization, one is the more heavily organized group that sponsors a hub social network site that encourages their participants to create their own sites to promote the beliefs. They seem to primarily call themselves "Ashtar Galactic Command", with a few minor variants. The problem I have is that all I'm seeing is a plethora of websites and claims, I'm not seeing any real indication of the notability of that particular group beyond that. Before I started working with this article (and its name was changed) it appeared to me to be simply a promotional mini-stub for the website of the group calling itself "Ashtar Galactic Command", which I believe was someone's initial intention. Switching the article title back to "Ashtar Galactic Command" would in effect be us declaring the website based group as notable enough for inclusion as an article, I don't see any evidence to support that. A look into a recent edition of Melton's 'Encyclopedia of American Religions',in the flying saucer section, might prove useful. I don't have access to one at the moment. IMO one last indicator against redirecting all our "Ashtar" eggs into one website based basket is the idea that the figure and name "Ashtar", along with a chunk of Van Tassel's mythos, has been appropriated by relatively larger groups like Church Universal and Triumphant, with membership in the thousands. Unless I see some reliable evidence, I don't feel I'm in a position to say that the wesite group "Ashtar Galactic Command" can claim to be the authoritative voice here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The beings worshipped by the Church Universal and Triumphant as Ascended masters do not include any that are believed by them to ride in flying saucers. Joshua David Stone was the only Ascended Master Teachings teacher so far to accept "Ashtar" as one of the "Ascended Masters". He included "Ashtar" on his list of Ascended Masters that "sponsored" his yearly April Wesak gathering at Mount Shasta. Keraunos (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Actually, I wasn't thinking along those lines at all. All I was thinking that "Ashtar Galactic Command" (or maybe "Ashtar Command", I'll have to check) was the name used for entry in the Lewis encyclopedia, and the title of this article, referring as it does more to the alleged entity than the humans responding to that alleged entity, seems to be a bit more limited. Also, as that is the title of that entry in the Lewis book, I'm assuming it might be the more popularly known name, as per WP:NAME. I don't personally know at this point exactly who was referrred to in that entry, and the ___location of that book isn't open today. But I will check and see exactly what is referred to in that entry. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JC That Lewis information will be useful. If I'm understanding the sources correctly the distinction between "Ashtar Command" and "Ashtar Galactic Command" could be important. The first one appears to be the name given to the group Robert Short (the editor of a UFO magazine at the time) initiated in the mid 50's, when he split from Van Tassel's group the "Ministry of Universal Wisdom". The group "Ashtar Galactic Command" appears to be of a more recent vintage, possibly out of the "post Tuella" period. My concern is that we're going to end up with an article called "Ashtar Galactic Command" that has a single link at the bottom to the online group, creating the direct impression that the subject of the article is that particular group alone. As I said, I'm not comfortable with helping to create an impression that a single group is notable enough for it's own separate article simply because they included the name "Ashtar" in their name and it's only being backed up with claims on a social networking site and its associated website ring, I'd like to see reliable references. Thanks for your help so far. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article should be kept because there is too much material to put in the George Van Tassel article and this alleged "being" Ashtar has developed a "life" of his own, with some believers believing that this "being" commands a large fleet of hundreds of flying saucers patrolling near Earth calld the Ashtar Galactic Command that some of these people believe will land in 2012. Also, the story of how "Vrillon" came to be regarded as the spokesperson for this flying saucer fleet still needs to be told as part of the article. Keraunos (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(old argument) There are no reliable sources that associate "Vrillon" with "Ashtar" apart from recent website hoaxes designed to promote a website named "Vrillon". The single non-circular source is Burton Paulu's book where he is talking about the 1977 broadcast hoax and he manages to get the date of the hoax wrong (search on Google Books for "Vrillon Ashtar"). This was discussed at length on Southern Television broadcast interruption hoax (1977) so please don't waste everyone's time by repeating such poorly sourced rubbish.—Ash (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced, and has sufficient independent sources to establish notability. Nonsense, but notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs improvement, certainly, but the topic certainly satisfies WP:NOTE. Here are some sources in books, web, scholarly sources, news. I could make it into a WP:GA-rated article but it is not a focus of mine right now. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 1 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Van Gogh's Artists' Market

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

borderline speedy. Promotional and non-notable. No usable references. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is promotional in nature. The only reliable source I could find is a minor mention here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 11:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Did anyone else catch the claim that she's Vincent's sibling? JNW (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article that just needs some work. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Hmmm must be his long lost great, great, great grandchild I guess...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Having searched Google Books and Google News Archive, I have been unable to find anything substantial. This Google Books result, which provides insignificant coverage, is the best source I could find. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 1 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 INCUBATE with nominator's approval. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Wald

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

Repeatedly tagged for speedy and prod--time to get a more definitive solution. Non notable hypnotist with a few media appearances. One apparently decent reference, [7] but it's just local boy makes good, and seems promotional to me, rather than reliable DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a tough case, IMO. The sourcing is pretty weak and promises of improvement have not been forthcoming. The article is a complete mess and probably COI created. However, Mr. Ward has appeared on TV as a "mind control expert" and the company he founded - EasyStop does appear to be notable (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22easystop%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a). There isn't much material on Mr. Ward readily available 9there is some though), but I don't want to rule out the possibility of better sources entirely. As such, I think this might be a good candidate for incubation. I see two possibilities: 1) enough material will be found to support the article; or 2) the little info that can be sourced can be reused in a small section as part of an article on EasyStop. If DGG doesn't object, I'll make the move and close the AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go right ahead. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 24 September 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. NW (Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido.net

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

The admin who closed the previous debate wrote, "The result was No consensus - however, following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources." With Black Kite (talk · contribs)'s permission, I have re-nominated the article.

The nominator of the previous debate is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:

Analysis of the sources in the article

1. This article from Rocky Mountain News mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story.
2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ – Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up.
3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.
5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "[s]eventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net.
6. This article from Rocky Mountain News does not even mention Bullshido.net.
7. This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net.
8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net.
9. This article from The Believer (magazine) does not even mention Bullshido.net.
10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida – a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself.
11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim – this is the same as #8.
12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 – this is the same as #8.
13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html – This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net.

I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!. If this site were truly notable as the above "keep" voters suggest, there should be sufficient sources about it. However, I have been unable to find any.

I am opposed to the merge suggested above by the wub (talk · contribs). There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.

I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.

The "keep" votes in the previous debate stated that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Procedurally Close AFD you can't renominate an AFD one day after the previous one is closed because you didn't like the results. You are supposed to take it to DRV. This superfluous AFD should be procedurally closed on the grounds that it goes against protocol. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true, if it weren't for Black Kite's closing statement, which makes it clear that this AfD is an exception to the normal rule because Cunard has explicit permission to renominate at once.
Delete per my previous argument.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the closing admin has granted leave to speedily renominate, there is no problem with speedy renomination. As to the merits, my !vote is delete per nom's thorough and exhaustive analysis of the sources. Cunard has said all that needs to be said. Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the standard thing to do was to add a template asking for more discussion & re list the 1'st AfD? I understand that Cunard was acting on the recommendation on the close, but I do think that that recommendation was misplaced, as it removes the abrasive comments made buy the original nominator from general view. --Nate ^t/_c 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting; my comment was not intended as a response to S Marshall's comment.) Relisting is at the closer's discretion; that AfD attracted enough comments that relisting may be inappropriate per WP:RELIST. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large [8] and significant martial arts web forum. JJL (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big-boards.com is not a reliable source. The website posts user-submitted information about the website. I can't see how Bullshido.net has a high ranking; the unreliable source you gave ranks it as the 898th most-viewed martial arts site. That's not significant enough to indicate notability. Cunard (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction 898th over all (out of 2319) and 2nd on Martial arts, the other being an exclusivily Mixed martial arts site. The stats arn't submitted by the site but you have to register to be on it, the was discussed @ length on the article talk page as is the Alexia rank. --Nate ^t/_c 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, ranking 898th over the 2319 sites that the unreliable source Big-boards.com is unimpressive.
[Y]ou have to register to be on it. – I wouldn't be surprised if Bullshido.net ranked number one when compared with the sites that are listed in the Big-boards.com's directory. Any arbitrary website developer can register his/her website, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source. The fact that Bullshido.net has already received a low rating (898th most viewed out of 2319) in a small selection of websites is a strong indicator that it will rank even lower when compared to other websites. This piece of trivia from an unreliable source does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify the point as saing "898th of martial arts" was factually incorect as was saying it was user submitted, this was debated on the article talk page already. --Nate ^t/_c 08:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point now, since I have explained in the preceding comment why Big-boards.com and its ranking system are unreliable.
And it's interesting that the question of verifiability and the lack of reliable sources was brought up by —BradV at the November 2008 talk page discussion you have referenced twice. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show that the mainstream media cites the site as the main source on the topic. [9]. The site is clearly notable in the normal sense of the word. While not traditionally reliable sources [10] provides plenty of information. So IAR keep from me. Plus I strongly dislike the relisting so rapidly. We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling those sources "mainstream media" is a narrow definition of "mainstream media," to put it mildly: they are, in order, the Charlotte Observer, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Rocky Mountain News, The University of Hawaii Kaleo, and TV.com, besides one German and one Israeli site--but the article from the German website (not a very reliable source) is about the German rapper, and the Israeli site is a message board. Drmies (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Charlotte Observer, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Rocky Mountain News are all clearly mainstream media. They cite this site for their articles. I'm not saying their coverage makes this topic meet WP:N, rather it supports my WP:IAR argument. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies is correct in saying that this is not mainstream media. Save for The Charlotte Observer, the other sources are local newspapers. Furthermore, Bullshido.net is not cited in stories about multiple events. Bullshido.net is mentioned in these stories only as background information about David "Race" Bannon. Bullshido.net is clearly not a website that newspapers constantly cite because it has been mentioned only in stories about one event. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting, it turns out I've been using MSM incorrectly (just looked it up), I guess I wanted "traditional media" or "print media", my mistake. My point is that papers we'd generally consider reliable have used this site as a RS themselves. To me that indicates a degree of notability (in the dictionary definition of the word, not WP:N) that combined with what coverage there is of the site indicates that we should probably have an article on it. I fully admit this is an IAR !vote... Hobit (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article about The Examiner, it "is a news site based in Denver, Colorado that allows local citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform, in over 60 cities in the United States." It's fairly straightforward that this article is not a reliable source. The article is not written neutrally (e.g. "Site founder and professional snarky libertarian Neal “Phrost” Fletcher"), and the author of it even states that "If the article seems to have a positive bias, it's because I've already recommended this resource." The Examiner source, though not adequate, is much better than the sources put forward by the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination).
  We don't bounce things around until we get the result we like, even if we are an admin. Please explain. I'm not an admin, and I do not wish to be one. I re-nominated the article for deletion after asking the closing admin for leave to speedily renominate the article. The closing admin then tweaked the closing rationale, writing that "following a request, I have no problem with a re-nomination here, as I was very close to deleting this for lack of reliable sources." I re-nominated the article for deletion because no one responded to my delete arguments, either to rebut them or agree with them. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was directed to the closing admin, not you. Hobit (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your comment is unwarranted, but there is no need to discuss that at this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment you renominated the article for deletion a day after it was closed because you didn't like the fact that your arguments were ignored. why are you taking it so personally? The Keep votes were mostly 'IAR, this is an important site,' not 'this site has 11 nytimes sources'. yes, the sources are weak. but the article deserves to be here regardless because it's a big deal in the martial arts community. i cannot believe that you renominated this so quickly just because people ignored your arguments. oh my god Theserialcomma (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the paragraph above your comment, I explained my reasons for re-nominating the article. The closing admin agreed that the sources were insufficient and that there was not enough participation after my comment to gauge a solid consensus. Contrary to the assumption that I have been "taking it so personally", I have been debating this article in a cool and calm manner. Your last sentence though, strongly indicates that you are not calmly debating this. Furthermore, why did you ignore my arguments? And what proves that this article is a "big deal in the martial arts community"? I have not been able to find substantial evidence of this. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Bullshido members did the investigations that then turned up in the news reports the sources are about those events the article needs some clean up but AfD is not the place to take an article that needs improvement. Note prior the precious AfD 2 the nominator twice removed & redirected the article without discussion or preservation of any content, --Nate ^t/_c 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bullshido members did the investigations ... " No, this does not establish notability; see WP:INHERITED. Furthermore, the sources that discuss David "Race" Bannon (which is the investigation you mention above) and Bullshido.net are very sparse. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played a major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was this article from Rocky Mountain News. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.
I agree that the article needs improvement, but there is no way to improve the article when there are no reliable sources about it. Cunard (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED says nothing about this, you could argue WP:ONEEVENT was relevent, but as I was not saying this is the only point of notability I would disagree as the whole point of the site is investigate these kind of things. There were other cases that have been removed , and I feel that a trim may be needed but there are enough sources on for some section and more can be added if looked for.-Nate ^t/_c 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we disregarded WP:INHERITED, we would still be left with trivial mentions. All of those references are passing mentions and cannot be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Note prior the precious AfD 2 the nominator ..." – this is irrelevant to the debate because I am the nominator of this AfD and the editor you are referring to has not participated in this debate yet. Please don't bring old ~~feuds~~ disputes into this new debate. Cunard (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the circumstances leading up to this AfD are relevant, If this was 6 months-a year down the line it would be less so, but as this AfD is effectively a continuation of that one, I feel it is highly relevant to the discussion at hand that the nominators have never engaged in attempting to improve the article and one tried to 'stealth' delete it. Characterising this as a feud seems OTT, I dislike his attitude, but all my interactions have been where he has made large undiscussed changes to articles I was already involved with and I have not mentioned anything other than edits related to this article here. --Nate ^t/_c 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may think think that this AfD should have occurred "6 months-a year down the line", but the closing admin disagrees with you and even states:

“

He is perfectly allowed to re-nominate it again. The discussion wasn't clear, a large amount of information was added to the AfD after people had !voted, and I really did consider for a long time deleting the article for lack of reliable sources, before NCing it. In fact, the more I look at that AfD, the more I believe I should have deleted it. Black Kite 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Let's not discuss how recently this article was nominated; instead, let's discuss why this website is notable.
I have refactored "feud" to "disputes" per your concern. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cunard's excellent analysis. The only possible claim to notability is Samuel Browning's role in the exposure of David "Race" Bannon, and at most that might deserve a brief mention in his article. The website itself has not received anything but passing mentions in any reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community. Furthermore last AfD was closed yesterday. How many times a week do we have to address this?Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as long as the article and this AfD present rather outlandish claims, I think this discussion is valid. I read, for instance, that "In existence since 2002 Bullshido.net has earned mainstream media attention for at least one of its investigations." This is sourced to the Rocky Mountain News--which, of course, does not state that "Bullshido.net has earned mainstream media attention" or anything like that. Rather, the one little article in that paper reports on Browning's investigation into the claims of some writer, and what that has to do with "rooting out fraudulent practices in the field [of martial arts]" is anyone's guess. Worse, the appearance of that one, single article must be the proof for the "mainstream media attention"--if the RMN reports on it, it must have received mainstream media attention: a clear example of either flawed logic or outrageous extrapolation, or both. I have removed "mainstream," since it's obviously not true: "mainstream media attention" suggests more than one--and countering that "mainstream" modifies "media" doesn't help much either: more truthful would be Bullshido.net was mentioned, one single time, in one local newspaper in 2006 as the website where an investigator posted his exposure of an impostor.
  Mind you, that RMN article, plus another one from the same paper about Bannon, and an article from The Believer, an online magazine of doubtful status, are the only references not from Bullshido forums or other websites. Let's look: the aforementioned article states that Browning published his expose on Bannon (a writer, not someone who runs a martial arts school), which was triggered by Bannon's claim to be a black belt--but that's all the article has to say about Bullshido. The second RMN article is about Bannon and doesn't mention Bullshido. The article from The Believer is an interview with Ashida Kim, whose investigation by Bullshido could be called relevant to the exposure of fraudulent practices in the field of martial arts--but the article doesn't even mention Bullshido. (I see now that Cunard has made these comments in the previous AfD--but apparently they bear repeating.)
  In sum, there simply is no significant, in-depth discussion of this webforum in any reliable source, including those mentioned by Hobit, above. "Ignore all rules"? I think keep-voters have to invoke that, since there is no way this subject is notable according to our guidelines. Given the comments by the closing admin on the previous AfD, which closed as "No consensus," there is nothing wrong with this renomination. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On reviewing those comments were solicited by the nominator. The opinion is still valid, but is should be clear why the comments are there.--Nate ^t/_c 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are saying that an ~~notable~~ expose published on a website, and partly run on that site has no baring on the site's notability? --Nate^t/_c 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling this a "notable expose" is a bit of a stretch. We're talking about a small handful of local newspaper articles. No evidence of national or international notability. *** Crotalus *** 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair point, not internationally notable dispite the pretensions of the subject, but it is still part of a whole suggesting notability in my view. --Nate^t/_c 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - RE: Nate's comment: no, I did not say it was notable, but yes, I am saying that the publication on that forum does not much enhance the notability of the forum. If it had, it would have been remarked on in other media (pace CoM's commment below) and it hasn't. And in regards to CoM's comments, below, will you show me actual significant, in-depth discussion of Bullshido.net in reliable independent sources? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If Bullshido.net had only been mentioned in an unreliable and POV pushing source like the New York Times as something cooked up by Judith Miller, Jayson Blair or Frank Rich, I would support deletion. But it's been noted and discussed in far more reliable and trustworthy media sources like the Rocky Mountain News (nicknamed the Rocky, a daily newspaper published in Denver, Colorado from April 23, 1859, until February 27, 2009) the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The University of Hawaii at Manoa's Ka Leo O Hawaii paper, Charlotte Observer and TV.com, besides one German and one Israeli site (so it's internationally significant!). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahem. Please look at the actual German article and admire the video featuring the German rapper Bushido. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're suggesting a merge to Bullshido? Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Preservation of sourced content is very important Doc if we're to be the sum of all human knowledge. Deletion, like blocking, should be a last resort! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No I'm not. And don't you give me any ideas about blocking, cause you're first on the list when I get that mop. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No; there is nothing to merge. Bullshido itself is not notable; I've checked for sources and have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per being noted and discussed in reliable independent sources. Media don't like to cover other media, so the extent of coverage this site has received indicates to me that it's quite notable and meets our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list the sources that you believe establish notability. The sources mentioned above are passing mentions that do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a valid link to the Charlotte Observer article, when I go to look at it, I am redirected to the main page, and my search of the newspaper website for Bullshido came up empty. The Rockey Mountain News does not qualify in my eyes as significant coverage, and neither do any of the others (or they don't qualify as reliable sources). --kelapstick (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello K, I disagree: the Rocky is reliable enough for me, but it has nothing of substance to say about our subject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was it didn't count as significant coverage, I would absolutely count the Rocky Mountain News as a reliable source. My point was it was the most of the others were not reliable, and if they were, did not address the subject in detail.--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the Observer story [11]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided by ChildofMidnight is to an abstract that is mainly about David "Race" Bannon. Bullshido.net is mentioned only in passing, so notability is not established.
  For example, a second article from Rocky Mountain News is about David "Race" Bannon with a passing reference to Bullshido.net. The only time this website is mentioned is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." I cannot see how this source provides nontrivial, meaningful discussion about Bullshido.net. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided is not to an abstract. It's to a lengthy article that can be freely accessed online with some basic information. Far from being a passing mention it states:

"A Connecticut lawyer named Samuel Browning runs a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials. Bannon claims to be a third-degree black belt in hapkido -- a Korean martial art -- and has written for kung fu magazines.

Browning spent two years checking dozens of details in Bannon's book -- down to the number of floors in a London hotel where Bannon says he killed a man. In February, Browning published a 10,000-word piece online that disputes most of the key stories in Bannon's book."

- - That's from just one of the sources. So there's plenty to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the portion of the article that mentions Bullshido.net. Your quote proves my point that these references are all passing mentions. Bullshido.net is only mentioned in a tiny phrase that lacks significant context. No, this passing mention does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(post e/c)Groovy, from the snippet you provided it looks like the article is about David Race Bannon, and I am sure (I reserve the right to be corrected) that they provided no more significant coverage than the RMN did.--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. That's what we have. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As kelapstick (talk · contribs) said in his vote below, "Insignificant coverage in reliable sources ≠ passing the general notability guidelines." The source you mentioned above is a passing mention that does not establish notability. Likewise, the rest of the sources that have been used to fluff up this article provide insignificant coverage. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs is certainly not a passing mention. You can argue that it's still not enough even with the other reliable sources noted, but I think you'd be making a mistake. A merge might be a more reasonable position since there is an appropriate target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the article that mentions Bullshido.net is: "a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials." One phrase is not "significant coverage". One phrase is not "two paragraphs", so don't inflate the depth of coverage. A merge to Bullshido is not viable for preserving the content because Bullshido has the same problems as this article. Both Bullshido.net and Bullshido lack nontrivial coverage in reliable sources and both are composed of original research, so they both do not belong here.

... not enough even with the other reliable sources. The other reliable sources are also passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources + Significant coverage in unreliable sources ≠ passing the general notability guidelines. --kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Keep The Rocky Mountain news and Charlotte Observer mentions should be sufficient for notability. Blowfish (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. As refuted above, both sources are passing mentions, which do not establish notability. Why do you think passing mentions establish notability? Cunard (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that relative to what one would expect for coverage of a website, the citations are sufficient. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Blowfish (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blowfish has very suspicious account activity. I'm getting really tired of Bullshido's manipulation of WP for their own promotional activities. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be wikipedia-stalking me. But in the interests of getting along, I'll assume that you're doing it with the purest of intentions. Regards, Blowfish (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply noticed a very obvious pattern when it comes to Bullshido-related articles. New editors and IPs suddenly show up just to vote. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The lack of reliable sources has been a problem in the article since 2006; see Talk:Bullshido.net/Archive 1#Edits for "greater neutrality". Cunard (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out, there are no reliable sources about Bullshido. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the better arguments already given. But, let's face it, this is going to be renominated until it gets deleted by wiki lawyers with no will to improve the articles in question as it conflicts with their personal crusade. This has happened to Ashida Kim already, and if we look elsewhere in the MA project you'll see the same attacks against certain articles with a common denominator. -- Iscariot (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments advanced above have been weak. The only sources that have been provided are unreliable sources, as well as reliable sources that provide trivial coverage.
Your argument about Ashida Kim has little relevance to this AfD, save that both Bullshido.net and Ashida Kim lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion on my talk page Kelapstick suggested creating an article on Samuel Browning, the website's creator, noting: "I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage." So that's also worth considering. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to that article subject and I want to thank Kelapstick for the very sensible suggestion! Whether we keep the content under the current article title or decide to merge it into an article on the site's creator, there's no sense in deleting substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. So we can probably speedy close this discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would, provided all content is supported with reliable sources, there are only two sentences in this article that are supported as such. The coverage in the sources covered are more related to Browning. I do think the suggestion is getting off topic. Rather than discuss new articles, we should keep on the subject at hand, which is the proposed deletion of bullshido.net. --kelapstick (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article also cannot be merged to Samuel Browning, since Browning does not have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. The only sources about him are the sources that are about how he exposed David "Race" Bannon; not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning". Therefore, even if Samuel Browning were notable, this website cannot be merged since it is only tangentially related to Browning. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Kelapstick disagrees. But I have no objection to covering Browning in this article. So that certainly reinforces the argument to keep this one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Browning is a redirect to David "Race" Bannon#Bannon's arrest. Neither Samuel Browning nor Bullshido.net is notable (see my explanation in my preceding comment for Browning's lack of notability), so I can't see why merging a non-notable topic to another non-notable topic is the suggested outcome. This most certainly does not "reinforce the argument to keep this one". Cunard (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look for something else on Browning (assuming there would be something secondary about him being a prosecutor available), and found nothing, so I would change my position on having an article about him (but again this is getting off the topic of this AfD). There is only enough sourced material for a mention of both Browning and the website in the Bannon article. --kelapstick (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment worst case scenario we should WP:IAR and keep because it's the second most popular martial arts website in the entire universe. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source verifies that Bullshido.net is the "the second most popular martial arts website in the entire universe"? The Big-boards.com reference provided by Nate has already been refuted as being unreliable. As I said above, "only websites that register are included in the Big-boards.com directory, so the ranking is not indicative of what ranking Bullshido.net would receive if it were compared to all the other websites on the Internet, especially the ones that have not registered with this unreliable source."
We should not WP:IAR and keep this article. Why should this article be deleted? It should be sent to the digital dustbin because the entire thing is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how incredibly original Theserialcomma (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blog for ninja fanboys/zealous martial-arts enthusiasts, has not been demonstrated to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR as this article clearly is improving the quality of Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research that fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability does not improve the quality of Wikipedia.
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... Cunard (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those investigation we're carried out the site WP policy does not dictate what it reports on that has already happened, or are you suggesting that if someone dosen't like something in Panorama we should delete the article on that? I'm not saying BS is as notable as that just that the point is invalid. --Nate ^t/_c 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any original research or non-neutral content can be removed. The subject is notable based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over several years. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assesment. It has been the subject of insignificant coverage in reliable independent sources. And if we removed all the non-reliable sources the article would be: Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud. There is no other source that is valid as a cite for use in the article. Although I am willing to agree to disagree with CoM on his assessment of what constitutes significant coverage.--kelapstick (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ,there is a lot more in the sources than that about the site's creator and his background, about the site's significance, about it's value and hits etc. etc. etc. I think your vote should be discounted on the basis of your misrepresenting what's in the sources, especially after I generously transcribed some of the content from one of the sources for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source was that?. Because the Charlotte Observer only mentions Browning and Bullshido.net in two paragraphs, and those paragraphs are made up of four sentences, total, not each. As I said, not significant coverage in my eyes, but you are free to your own interpretation. --kelapstick (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight, don't inflate the coverage. The article you transcribed above provides less than a sentence in coverage about Bullshido.net. As I said above, The only part of the article that mentions Bullshido.net is: "a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials." One phrase is not "significant coverage". One phrase is not "two paragraphs", so don't inflate the depth of coverage. The only reason that Bullshido.net received a single phrase in the article is because one of its members, Samuel Browning, posted on the Bullshido.net's forum about how he debunked David Race Bannon. You assert that Samuel Browning is the site's creator, but according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning".
Where is the coverage about the site's significance and its value? There are none. Where is the coverage about the site's hits? None. The lack of significant, nontrivial coverage in any secondary, reliable source means that Bullshido.net fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Notability (web), which states that an article should be kept if "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." For "multiple," we have two. For "non-trivial," we have none. You can't write an article if it has no significant coverage from Reliable sources.
What does not count is "trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge question. Does deleting this article improve Wikipedia? If so, how? JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to you above: Original research that fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability does not improve the quality of Wikipedia.
Unsourced, non-neutral WP:BLP violations detract from Wikipedia's quality; see here: Kim reacted badly to these investigations ... This clearly shows why the deletion of Bullshido.net would improve the encyclopedia.

WP:NOHARM also provides some relevant reasons:

Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here.

Although the first paragraph is more relevant to WP:BLPs, it is applicable to all articles. In a nutshell: the lack of verifiability means that the original research in Bullshido.net may or may not be true. Since there is no way to verify this information, false information may start seeping in. This will damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those investigation we're carried out the site, WP policy does not dictate what it reports on that has already happened, or are you suggesting that if someone dosen't like something in Panorama we should delete the article on that? I'm not saying BS is as notable as that just that the point is invalid. --Nate ^t/_c 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first sentence of your reply, but I can respond to the following sentences. If Panorama were solely composed of original research, it should be rewritten because there are plenty of sources about it. Bullshido.net is solely composed of original research, but it cannot be written because it is a non-notable website and there are no sources about it. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The off wiki actions of an individual, group, or program have no baring on if an article on the subject is valild. So the argument is essentialy null, it dose not supprot or oppose notability so does not belong in an AfD disscusion. --Nate ^t/_c 09:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing about off-wiki actions in my preceding comment. Which comment are of mine are your responding to? Cunard (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair and reasoned response. If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, ALL articles run the risk of false information seeping in. This is the very nature of Wikipedia. When that happens, we remove it. If it happens too often, we protect it. If there is original research in an article we can and should remove that too. How does this article appear if we make all the necessary corrections. Is it completely vacant, or not? JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we make all the necessary removal of original research, the article will lack sufficient context. As kelapstick (talk · contribs) said above, the article would only consist of: "Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud." I doubt that this piece of information would improve Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ::the way to find out what would be left is to discuss the individual items on the talk p. The article has potential content. We cannot delete an article because if it were edited aggressively, it might possibly lack sufficient content--only if you can show that it necessarily would, and I do not think that in most cases --including this--one could show that. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis of the sources above shows that none are sufficient to source the information in the article; nor are they useful for the creation of a shorter article — even a stub — that does not have original research. I have not "edited aggressively" anything from the article, so you may judge the article on what it looks like right now. In the searches I performed on Google, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Yahoo!, I could not find any reliable sources that could expand this beyond what kelapstick (talk · contribs) said above (which I quoted in my reply to JBSupreme): "Bullshido.net is a martial arts website that was involved in the exposing of David "Race" Bannon as a fraud." That single sentence does not improve Wikipedia. If an editor were to edit out the original research, only that single sentence will remain.
The lack of reliable sources means that the article fails WP:WEB and the presence of solely original research means that this article is not verifiable and may contain false information. Those are the reasons why I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 30 September 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 March deportation. NW (Talk) 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virve Eliste

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

Dubious notability (WP:ONEEVENT). Article unlikely to be expanded at all. Quibik (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this factoid to March deportation. After that, I'm OK with a redirect but delete would be OK, too. Location (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with March deportation, as Location suggests. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to March deportation per above. I was unable to find any sources that proved that Virve Eliste is notable outside of March deportation. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 1 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Aracon E'Kerion

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

I gave it a speedy-tag 10 days ago, but removed the tag upon creator's request, and put an "under construction"-template on it. Said editor has disappeared and not done anything to improve this article since.
Main criteria for deletion:

Notability not established
Written like an essay
Possible conflict of interest Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks like it's nothing more than a bio page and/or CV. If there's anything, start over from scratch. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to substantiate notability. As an author, his book has been put out through Lulu. -- Whpq (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)
Delete. Unreferenced vanity page, fails WP:NOTABILITY. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixture of hoax, OR and spam. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 29 September 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. This nomination appears to be in bad faith, as the nominator is abusing multiple accounts (still working on identifying them all, but it's certain there are several). There's only one other user here in favor of deleting the article, and those arguments in favor of keeping the article are well-formed. Please open a new AfD if you believe this should be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Selleri

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

Nominate for Deletion: The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The list of "books" cited in the article has much overlap with the list of "books" in the articles of certain other individuals (e.g., Alwyn Van der Merwe), and it evidently just denotes contributors to edited volumes, and these do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reputable sources. Also, the linked biography is at the web site of Natural Philosophy Alliance, a well known organization of physics cranks, not a reputable scientific organization. Also, there are no secondary sources on Mr Selleri, which is a strong indication of lack of notability. In addition, the editor who created this page (Webmaster6) may have a conflict of interest, since he created or edited (almost exclusively) the articles on Alwyn Van der Merwe ‎and the Foundation of Physics and other articles, all closely associated with the subject of this article.P0CF1A (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to have a festschrift in a springer journal, is in the new york academy of science, and is covered in the niels bohr's institute's series of interviews of living scientists. if he's not notable... then... we need to cut about 98% of the rest of the physicists i'd guess. this might be an article that needs cleanup, but cleanup isn't a reason for deletion, this should be a snowball or speedy keep. Also note that this is the nominator's only action in wikipedia, seems a bit strange.--Buridan (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Strange indeed. Note that the prodder of the article, 130.76.32.182, has had many warnings. For "author:Franco Selleri" GS gives cites of 181, 177, 99, 70, 51, 46... h-index about 17. Seems ample for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
keep Perfectly clear for me that the prodder of the article is running a personal mission here. The conflict of interest is totally nonsense (specially with your ip address that is full with conflict) as I created the article Alwyn Van der Merwe and added a link in Foundation of Physics to it. I do not understand what the connection is with the current article. Plus if somebody's name is on the author list of a books he is an author of that book and full stop. Who are you to question which books he wrote or not? None of the accusations stand. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My belief is that the subject doesn't meet any of the Notability criteria listed at WP:Prof. Since this seems to be disputed, let's take them one at a time, and see if we can isolate which criteria might apply.

(1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

This one clearly doesn't apply. Any physicist whose publications are concentrated in known crackpot venues such as Aperion and the Natural Philosophy Alliance, along with Foundations of Physics (which is about as UNprestegious a journal as you can get in physics) clearly is far from making a significant impact in the field of physics. Also, note that the criterion calls for independent sources, whereas Alwyn Van der Merwe (whose Wikipedia article was created by the same person who created Selleri's, and who produced the above-mentioned "festschrift", and co-authored most of the "books" listed in Selleri's article) is clearly not an independent source.

(2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

This clearly doesn't apply.

(3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Clearly doesn't apply.

(4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Clearly doesn't apply.

(5) The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

Nope.

(6) The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Nope.

(7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Nope.

(8) The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

Nope.

(8) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Nope.

So, in summary, I don't think the person qualifies as notable under any of the Wikipedia criteria. If anyone disagrees, can you cite which criteria you believe applies? And on what grounds you believe it?

By the way, for another perspective, see the following web page: http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/removal-of-the-franco-selleri-page-by-wikipedia/ P0CF1A (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WoS shows 53 publications with an h-index of 14 and most of these are low-author-number or single author papers. That means that he did the work and is not riding the coattails of a larger research group. Coupled with Xxanthippe's observations from GS, this seems to handily satisfy WP:PROF #1. I can't speak to the "known crackpot venues" referred to above, but the closing admin should please note that publications like Physics Letters and Physical Review (which the subject has frequently published in) are flagship journals in physics and are precisely the kind of publication venues that connote "impact". For example, in the ISI Journal Index ratings of impact (the main index service in physics), Physics Letters B is ranked 7th in the category of multidisciplinary physics while Physical Review A is ranked 6th in atomic physics. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Question Could you (or anyone else) provide some citations to the "frequent" papers published in Physics Letters and/or Physical Review? I ask because the subject himself has discussed how "Foundations of Physics" was created specifically as a venue for people like him who could not get published elsewhere, and whose careers were endangered by their non-mainstream views. Also, Agricola44, you say you can't speak to the known crackpot venues... I think that's unfortunate, because the bulk of the subject's writings appear there, so it would be helpful for editors to be familiar with those writings and the status of those venues when deliberating on the question, i.e., whether the subject's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The only publications of the subject that I'm aware of were in places that were neither independent nor reliable. So, if you can cite the (presumably large) number of papers in reputable journals, it would be helpful. A small number of such papers obviously wouldn't qualify the author as notable, so hopefully you can cite a couple dozen from reputable sources. Off hand I'd guess that the vast majority of the 53 papers you mentioned were in crackpot venues. If I'm wrong, please correct me.P0CF1A (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. First, as to your opinion "I think that's unfortunate", I'll remind you that we're here at AfD specifically and only to assess whether the subject is notable enough to retain his article. We're not judging the quality of the article, whether he's a crackpot or not, whether the article acceptably addresses this issue, etc. If these are indeed problems, they can be fixed by proper editing. The reason I'm not speaking to the alleged "known crackpot venues" is that they are entirely unnecessary in establishing Selleri's notability as a legitimate physicist. As a disclaimer, let me say that I'm not familiar with his work in the least, but the fact that he has boatloads of entries in the standard index (WoS), as well as boatloads of citations to this work do furnish sufficient evidence of notability, specifically as codified by WP:PROF #1. I'm afraid your assumption about most of his work being in crackpot venues is indeed wrong. I list for your inspection the first 10 articles in his WoS entry from either the Physics Letters or Physical Review families of journals (since those are what I've referred to above). There are more of these, as well more articles in other top physics journals like Journal of Physics. I won't list all 53 WoS entries in the interest of space, but you're certainly invited to check/confirm these for yourself. (FYI: The institution listed on each is University of Bari, as we should expect.)

1) Local realism has not been refuted by atomic cascade experiments, Marshall TW, Santos E, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 98 (1-2) 5-9, 1983.

2) Enhanced photon detection in electron-paramagnetic-res type experiments, Garuccio A, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 103 (3), 99-103, 1984.

3) Quantum-mechanics versus local realism for neutral kaon pairs, Privitera P, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS B 296 (1-2), 261-272, 1992.

4) Incompatibility between local realism and quantum mechanics for pairs of neutral kaons, Selleri F, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 56 (5), 3493-3506, 1997.

5) Local realistic photon models and epr-type experiments, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 108 (4), 197-202, 1985.

6) Quantum mechanics versus local realism for neutral kaon pairs, Foadi R, Selleri F, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 61 (1), art num. 012106, 2000 .

7) Quantum mechanics versus local realism and a recent EPR experiment on K-0(K)over-bar(0) pairs, Foadi R, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS B 461 (1-2), 123-130, 1999.

8) Local realistic models and nonphysical probabilities, Home D, Lepore VL, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 158 (8), 357-360, 1991.

9) Amplification of light from an undulatory point-of-view, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 120 (8), 371-376, 1987.

10) Empty waves do not induce stimulated-emission in laser media - reply, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 132 (2-3), 72-74, 1988.

This body of work and the associated h-index of at least 14 are very compelling evidence of notability under WP:PROF #1, irrespective of any work in crank venues, which again I remind you I have no knowledge of, nor would I consider it to be relevant. Respecfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't have access to the WoS database, so I can only evaluate based on what you've reported. We have a sharp difference of opinion as to whether these 10 papers constitute a body of work that establishes "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." If everyone who has published 10 or more papers (over their entire career of 40 years) is to be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biographical article, then I think virtually every academic on the planet is "notable". Also, these papers themselves are obviously not an "independent source". There are no reputable secondary sources asserting that the subject has made a significant impact on physics. What exactly is the significant impact that the subject has made on physics? Each of the titles on your list seems to consist of re-stating Bell's theorem, over and over and over again. Also, the subject himself has described how he was passed over and not made a full professor for a decade (1970 to 1980) because of his non-mainstream beliefs, and of his difficulty in getting his papers accepted by reputable journals, and that only in Italy would someone like him even be able to have held a position, etc., etc. In view of this, and the complete absence of reputable secondary sources, (even setting aside his numerous publications in crank venues, and active participation in crackpot organizations like The Natural Philosophy Alliance), it is very difficult to see how anyone can claim that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I ask again: What has been his significant impact?P0CF1A (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your remarks suggest that you're either new here, or are willfully looking past evidence that does not futher your agenda. The facts are these, nota bene: WoS shows 53 papers. WoS only lists peer-reviewed publications and his have lots of citations. There is a long, well-established consensus that use of a scientist's work, as evidenced by citations (here >300), satisfies WP:PROF #1. You seem to want a source that says he's notable, but this is not necessary. I'm sorry I can't explain this any more plainly because you seem unable to comprehend that large numbers of citations are the very sufficient evidence that is needed. Finally, you'll pardon me if I put more credence in the peer-reviewed acceptance in top physics journals of his papers than in your opinion that his work consists of simply "re-stating Bell's theorem". Please consider the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree. Instead, put the information about any crank activities, memberships, problems with promotion, etc. in the article itself! (Reliably sourced, of course.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question to P0CF1A. As I said above, I'm not familiar with the person or his work. However, I just noticed that nowhere in the titles I listed above is "Bell's Theorem" mentioned. Yet, you seem to already know that that is the subject matter of at least some of these papers, suggesting you know more about this individual than you're perhaps disclosing. May I ask if you have some personal agenda? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

We may have identified the reason for the difference between our perceptions. I'm well-enough acquainted with the field of theoretical physics to know that Bell's theorem states that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Hence when I look at a list of papers with titles that say some variation on the words "quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism" I recogize that those papers are all just repeating Bell's theorem (over and over and over). I take it from your comments that you are unacquainted with theoretical physics, which places you at a disadvantage (I think) when it comes to assessing whether or not the subject of this article has made a significant impact in the field of theoretical physics.

As to the statistical numbers of papers and citations, just for fun (and to test the correctness of my assessment) I found one particular paper by Selleri, announcing that the Sagnac effect proves that Einstein was an idiot and special relativity is logically inconsistent. Now, this paper (which is utter nonsense) has some citations, so I checked one of those citations, a paper by Rizzi and Tartaglia, in which it is shown that (surprise) Mr Selleri was mistaken, and the Sagnac effect is NOT inconsistent with special relativity, and Einstein was not an idiot. Now, admittedly this is just a single example, but surely you can see that at least in this particular case the paper and the citation do not in any way support the thesis that Selleri has had a significant impact on theoretical physics. Likewise I can also recognize in the titles to some of Selleri's "books" (which are really compendiums of papers written by various crackpots from around the world, mostly Russia) that the subject is cold fusion. I happen to know for a fact that Selleri's views on cold fusion have not had a significant impact on theoretical physics. And so on.

You asked if I have a personal agenda. I would say it's more of an anti-agenda. The point of view that I think it unsuitable to serves as the basis for editing Wikipedia articles is exemplified by the link below.

http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/evidence-against-wikipedia-letters-from-louis-de-broglie-to-franco-selleri/

You see, some individuals have been trying to insert crackpot physics organizations into Wikipedia (several are listed in the Selleri article), and they have been thwarted for the most part by verious editors telling them that those organizations are not notable. So, the crackpots then set about to create articles from members of those organizations, for the purpose of building up the perceived notability of those organizations, and ultimately for overthrowing the facist defenders of the bankrupt scientific orthodoxy (i.e., reputable scientists). I think these individuals have an agenda that detracts from the quality of Wikipedia, and violates Wikipedia policies, and their agenda deserve to be thwarted. I'm opposed to their agenda.P0CF1A (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is very interesting. You're correct – I have no special training in theoretical physics. However, I still cannot help but to notice all those citations that are in peer-reviewed journals. Are you asserting that all, or at least most of his work, even in journals like Physics Letters and Physical Review is basically pseudo-scientific bunk? It would certainly be helpful to have persons closer to the subject weigh-in here. Thanks for your explanation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment and question.

- Comment: If the final result is a keep, I would recommend rewriting the article since the text is dangerously similar to the "About the Author" section here [12] and almost identical to a paragraph here [13], and may be a copyright violation.

- Question: Is it common in Physics to write books? I would have thought that research in this discipline is published in peer-reviewed journals. Franco Selleri has authored two publications in journals with names that even someone like me (who is outside of the field) recognizes: the article in Phys. Rev. Lett. from the 1960s and Phys. Lett. A from the 1980s (4 and 24 GS cites, respectively). These outlets suggest that he was a mainstream physicist until the 1980s. I have no way of telling whether his other publications and the books in the later period are serious science or not.

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the subject has succeeded in getting published a grand total of TWO (2) papers in high quality reputable journals? Surely that does not support the claim that his "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And by the way, many (if not most) of the references to the subject's writings are for the purpose of refuting him. It's necessary, when trying to assess "significant impact", to actually have some idea of what impact (if any) the person has had. My assertion is that the subject of this article has not had a "significant impact" on physics as represented in independent reliable sources.

-Answer. It is not uncommon in physics for people to write books (Dirac wrote a famous book on Quantum Mechanics) although they usually do most of their publishing of original work in refereed journals. I reject the imputations of others that 'Foundations of Physics' is a crank journal. It has a highly distinguished editor and publishes reputable work that is externally refereed although, as its mission statement says, it casts its net wider than some other journals do. Even if the subject of the article were a 'crank' (and I do not accept the minority view that implies that he is) then the many sources show that he is a notable crank and merits an article in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The crackpot venues I mentioned were anything published by Apieron and the Natural Philosophy Alliance, two organizations well known as havens for kooks and crackpots. I then juxtaposed this with the comment that Foundations of Physics "is about as UNprestegious a journal as you can get in physics". It has certainly published crackpot material in the past while under the editorship of Selleri's co-author Alwyn Van der Merwe. A couple of years ago there was a change of editor, with G. t'Hooft apparently taking the job. Whether the quality of papers will improve is unclear, but even now their editorial policy says "we don't necessarily agree with what we publish", so this is not the usual kind of "peer reviewed journal" that qualified as a reputable source for scientific information in Wikipedia. It is more like an opinion journal where a wide range of people are allowed to voice their views... views that couldn't be published anywhere else. So this does not support the claim that the subject of this article has been significantly influential ("significant impact") in the reputable physics community.

Whether or not he is notable as a crank is a separate question, but I would caution everyone about creating a Wikipedia page on a living person on the grounds that he is a crank. There would certainly be no shortage of material to support that, but I think it's usually a very bad idea to create such pages. They are simply insulting to the person. Wikipedia has recently been trying to clean up its act when it comes to articles about living people. I doubt that the subject of this article would appreciate being included for his notability as a crank, with full documentation of his crankishness. So, in my opinion, if we can't find notability under the Prof criteria, we should delete.P0CF1A (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, based on the h-index, sources provided by Buridan etc above. Whether someone has published in outlets regarded as crank or fringe is irrelevant, and there is no evidence provided here or in the article that Selleri is regarded as a crank or fringe figure, which of course would have to be quite reliably sourced to be used in the article. The number of publications (just one would be enough, if it were good enough or cited enough), or where they are published has much less to do with academic notability as understood here than their number of (mainstream academic) citations.John Z (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unnotable academically except for association with the pseudoscientific web group around Myron Evans, Rugero Santilli and Franceso Fucilla. The role of Webmaster6 (talk · contribs) on WP has been to add the names of people chosen by Santilli for his awards. Three articles on films created by Webmaster6 were recently deleted - see the discussion on WP:FTN here [14]; see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diego_Lucio_Rapoport. This seems to be part of a campaign coordinated by Myron Evans to promote his cronies, as evidenced by this entry on his blog about Selleri [15] and this running commentary by Fucilla [16]. Selleri is a recipient of one of the 2010 physics awards given by Fucilla [17]; Florentin Smarandache is another award winner. No need for WP to become a mirror site for a crank pseudoscience blog. Amongst other things, Selleri has rejected the Big Bang [18], has proposed his own alternative to special relativity and believes that quantum mechanics is incorrect [19], [20]. Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathsci asserts "Unnotable academically" but does not provide anything in this line to refute the evidence of academic notability brought forward by Agricola44. The rest of the argument seems to be based on the question of whether Seleri is a crank. It is possible to be both a notable academic and a crank. So far we have no policy that would allow crankiness to trump notability.
- The number of publications is small for a physicist. I would also look for prestigious mainstream journals like Annals of Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc. There is a huge question mark next to Apeiron. As a physicist, Selleri seems no more distinguished than the average lecturer in the UK; he is definitely outside the mainstream. It would be impossible for example to describe any contributions he has made in physics beyond scepticism based on his interpretation of other people's work (eg Bell's theorem). That to me is a major problem. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be the case that 53 is a small number of peer refereed research publications. Nobel Prizewinner Lars Onsager, who worked in academia through all his career, has few more than 60 to be found in GS. The presentation of 'Annals of Physics' as an exemplary journal is perhaps unfortunate as one of the Bogdanov papers was published there. Also, much of the work of Selleri has not been on nuclear physics. The papers by Selleri found by Agricola44 are in leading physics journals. But all this is irrelevant. As one contributor to this AfD points out, even a single paper with enough cites will suffice to achieve notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally, the nominator P0CF1A (talk · contribs) is evidently not new (first and only edits at this AFD), admits to being opposed to fringe science, with an interest in Cold Fusion. Is his username by any chance short for "Physics 0, Cold Fusion 1" or some similar comment displaying a close interest in, and unhappiness with the result of, a recent Arbcomm case? Presumably he is a sockpuppet, possibly of someone else who wants such articles deleted. Quotient group (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to say whom you might have in mind (recently arrived Quotient group (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet account). This has nothing to do with cold fusion. However, Webmaster6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be connected with Francesco Fucilla, so has some kind of WP:COI. At least five of his recent articles have been deleted, perhaps more. The articles all seem to be connected with the Teleseo-Galileo prize financed by Fucilla. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of arguments put forward by myself and others. The extensive investigations of Agricola44, particularly the data from WoS show that WP:Prof #1 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- According to the SLAC spires index [21], only a joint paper written in 1961 at CERN in elementary particle theory seems to have a significant number of citations. The remaining articles are short notes, often uncited. For comparison, here is the spires listing for Peter Goddard [22] (the celebrated Goddard-Kent-Olive paper is cited over 600 times). This should be compared with Peter Landshoff [23] (210 articles) and Hugh Osborn [24] (82 articles), both eventually professors of theoretical physics in DAMTP. And here's one of their colleagues [25] (42 articles) also with no WP article but with some far more influential papers. This illustrates what I mean by "academically unnotable". All four of these physicists have made far more notable contributions than Selleri. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Quite the reverse. Xxanthippe and Agricola44 are using a criterion that would require every lecturer in DAMTP to have a wikipedia page. Both of them have yet to explain why a series of short notes with few or no citations shows academic distinction. At the moment neither of these users has presented any kind of convincing reason. The low citation rate for Selleri shows that he has made little or no impact in mainstream physics. Perhaps worse: his work might enjoy some notoriety. There are 57 articles recorded in Mathematical Reviews. Here is a review of one his most recent articles Superluminal signals and the resolution of the causal paradox [26]:

"The author begins by summarizing continuing claims by him and others of superluminal signals. Generally such claims are misguided. To date there are no confirmed experiments or astrophysical observations of propagation of physical information in inertial frames at speeds exceeding the measured vacuum velocity of light. This fact is of course consistent with Einstein's theory of special relativity. To date, no confirmed violation of this theory has ever been found. The author proceeds to review his earlier proposal of space-time transformations generally deviating from the Lorentz transformations of special relativity by a dependence on a time-synchronization parameter. He unconvincingly argues that his transformations are consistent with superluminal signaling. The author concludes by reviewing his earlier polemics on quantum theory, in the context of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, attempting to argue consistency with superluminal signaling, while totally ignoring the many recent experimental confirmations of quantum entanglement, particularly in the burgeoning field of quantum information processing."

This public statement from 2007 in a very widely read publication (where negative views are discouraged) indicates that Selleri's work is not highly regarded and has not been accepted by the mainstream physics community. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be agreement that the relevant measure of notability is WP:PROF#1. There also seems to be near-agreement that Selleri has published in mainstream as well as non-mainstream physics (referred to as "crank physics" above). P0CF1A and MathSci and do not agree with treating both types of publications equally. I propose the following procedure: ask whether Selleri is notable according to WP:PROF #1 in mainstream and non-mainstream physics separately (as if they were different disciplines) using the usual tools of citation counting and the h-index. If he is notable according to either, keep the article. Otherwise, delete. If the article is kept per non-mainstream physics, the article should reflect this (it has to be rewritten anyway because of copyvio). Neutral words, such as "non-mainstream", "controversial", "polemic", etc. could be used if reliable sources exist. In think that this proposal addresses all points of view expressed in the discussion so far. Finally, as a user of Wikipedia, I would be interested in reading about controversies in Physics and about their proponents if they are notable enough, no matter how wrong their propositions are. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the process that you suggest has already been carried out above. Web of Science carries citations from only mainstream journals. According to Agricola44, WoS gives an h-index of at least 14, which establishes WP:Prof #1. Google Scholar casts a wider net and may contain items which some may regard as "fringe". Fringeyness is not easy to define and lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people take the view that ideas they don't agree with are "fringe". There are even some (myself not included) who consider String theory to verge on pseudoscience. It is not unknown for people to establish a reputation in mainstream science and then, later in their lives, move into areas that their colleagues consider "fringe". The physics Nobel Prizewinner Julian Schwinger was one of these. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The poster-child of this phenomenon is perhaps Brian Josephson:) More to the point: This case is obviously a complicated one and I think excellent points have been brought up on both sides. If I would be permitted to summarize: There is very plain evidence that he has published much work in mainstream physics journals, nevertheless, we are likewise concerned at the prospect of WP being utilized as a mouthpiece for pseudo-scientific views and work. I think CronopioFlotante has described the most sensible pathway toward resolution. Please read his proposal carefully and weigh-in – it could be the best way forward to obtain a consensus position. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think there is any danger of WP being utilised as a mouthpiece for fringe science as long as contentious issues are openly flagged. This is done admirably in the articles on Brian Josephson and Julian Schwinger. There is no reason why it cannot be done on this article too with some editing. I am more concerned by the attitude of some editors who appear to contend that the alleged fringe activities are best dealt with by deletion. There is no WP policy to say that certain topics are not to be written about; the only criterion is notability. I also caution editors about making judgments in an academic dispute when they have been exposed to only one side of the story. Having said that, I think that the suggestion of CronopioFlotante can usefully be followed. As I stated before, the subject achieves notability for his activities in mainstream science and on the basis of the evidence submitted to the AfD by other editors he appears to be notable for his fringe contributions as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A well-made point, as usual Xxanthippe. Respcty, Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I was about to mention another Fucilla-Santilli prizewinner Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which has been redeleted in the course of the day. If either Dunning-Davies or Selleri were a Nobel prize winner, no discussion like this would be taking place. Both Josephson and Schwinger have made outstanding contributions to mainstream physics. Selleri on the other hand has made no significant contribution to mainstream physics, contrary to what Xxanthippe is suggesting; and the review that I cited above is damning about the vast bulk of his fringe contributions. Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci is interesting. Finds P0CF1A may be involved in sockery. Final determination awaited. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly adding my username shows the initiator was not being particularly intelligent - so far CU has identified him as a sock of at least 3 other users and has unsurprisingly dismissed any involvement by me. I have mentioned your name and Agricola44 because I found it quite odd that you were aware of the SPI. How did you know? I had no idea until I read what you just wrote.

Meanwhile, noone has produced any evidence so far of significant contributions to mainstream physics by Selleri. The spires records show very few indeed. It might be time to start another Francesco Fucilla thread on WP:FTN in view of all the games being played here. Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mathsci: I have the same level of "coordination" with you as I have with Xxanthippe, that being a fairly long history of independent edits on some of the same AfDs and articles. This reflects the fact that we all seem to have overlapping interests and, moreover it seems, high correlation of opinions. For example, I strongly share your position against fringe material, as evidenced by my arguments in the recent LaViolette AfD. There's no collusion, as you've implied. I personally have only used this single account since my first WP edit. So, please be very careful in raising accusations. No harm, this time. Let's get back to work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to the crucial question of whether or not BLP1E should be applied to this article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hobson

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nolamgm (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dominic·t 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while there are exceptions, most criminals don't qualify for articles, and I don't see any good reasons to consider Hobson an exception. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Four murders do not equal one event.--EchetusXe 12:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The murders occurred within hours of each other and were reported as a single news event. There is no need to make a technical distinction between separate "events" on that basis. The issue that BLP1E is getting at still applies here: barring rare and extraordinary circumstances the subject of the biographical article ought to actually have a body of work to discuss using biographical sources; mere involvement in a single newsworthy event does not mean a biographical article is warranted. Dominic·t 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. Giant Snowman 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think this one is much clearer than Tracie Andrews because of the legal aspects. Hobson was (as the article accurately states) one of the first defendants in an English court to be given a whole life tariff by a Judge. His reported behaviour in prison may also be considered significant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SamB. Crafty (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 murders is enough to be notable, if necessary by IAR. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not mandate article deletion. Violation of this policy does not mandate deletion but only renaming. If the information itself is notable than it should be included. This individual passes WP:GNG as he has “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” WP:BLP1E does not require renaming. It is not about one event. It is about multiple events: the murders, the conviction, his sentence, and ongoing issue with whole life tariff. Nolamgm (talk) 19:00, 30 September 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 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Buglass

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

Subject has requested deletion and information contained was, while adequately sourced, only marginally notable (independent archaeologist, couple of TV appearances etc). GARDEN 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this case, the subject is of such minor notability that, if he doesn't want to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, I think we can help him out. Current article is blanked by the subject; the most recent version of the article with content seems to be here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of high public profile and subject (apparent) request. In the meantime, I've trimmed the article down for privacy reasons. Anyone wanting to check the full version can see FQ's link above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the person who is the subject of this artical i have no idea how it came into being it is inaccurate and reflects personal items i do not really want people to know - i am currently having enough problems with some unwanted attention from a certain individual this does not help. if you really really want to put out the trivia of my life try asking me what i have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.8.87 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject is marginally notable and has requested deletion. I was unable to find any sources on Google News Archive that would establish that he passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 1 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kevin Stewart-Magee. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barring a few questionable comments, the article satisfies WP:N. Opener's concerns involving Crystal are also resolved. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)

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

Delete. Album was confirmed (via Twitter and her official website) earlier this evening, but no tracklist has been confirmed. Therefore, this fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME Dale 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator as it fails WP:NALBUMS. Existing is one thing—being notable is an entirely different one. talking birds 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before we barely had an reliable info. Now we have good sources directly from Spears' site. It may not have a tracklisting, but a lot of albums on the site that don't have tracklists exist and have existed. ---Shadow (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was confirmed by Britney's official site. how could there possibly be more evidence. i say keep it until the release may be canceled. until then, i wouldnt delete anything seeing as it is all true and not rumours--Apeaboutsims (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It was already confirmed by Britney Spears web sites, so it is no longer just a rumored album. It must be keep. Besides, there have been a lot of articles about upcoming albums that doesn't have tracklist, and even worst, there have been a lot of upcoming albums with no title. it doesnt fail at all with: WP:RS cuz her websites are reliable, WP:CRYSTAL we are not talking about rumors, its official, so we are not "watching the future", and WP:HAMMERTIME because the info shown here is not from forums or message boards, it comes from reliable sources. It must be keept.Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, we need third party, reliable sources to establish notability. Therefore, the article needs to be deleted. Dale 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, confirmed by Spears' official website and other reliable sources online. Release isn't too far away. No reason to delete. Jayy008 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its been confirmed by britney's own official site, its been widely reported on other sites now including MTV. it is confirmed and official. Even retailers are listing it now as well. The release isn't that far away. I see no good reason to delete this article. Gartheknight (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that it's confirmed all... More information had become available. --PlatinumFire 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's been confirmed.--Aaa16 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasoning. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITEXISTS: "Existence is important". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless if we have a track listing or not, the album is notable, its been showing up in all kinds of reliable sources: [27].--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists. Note I was canvassed here from ANI. Mike R (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why do you hate Britney Spears? (WP:HAMMERTIME footnote 2) Miami33139 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leave Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) Alone!. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vio of CRYSTAL, NALBUMS, and RS. A single primary source, and secondary sources citing that primary source with no independent confirmation, of something that MAY happen in the future, aren't enough to support any article, and we all know this. I conceded that in six months to a year, we'll need to undelete it, but for all we know, she'll shave her head again, go dog fighting with Michael Vick, bust Plaxico Burress out of prison, and microwave and eat her children in a gala banquet with all of those guys, and Paris Hilton and Mackenzie Philips, before summoning the ghost of Elvis and burning chicago to the ground (again). All this then precludes her label from releasing anything but her from her contract. (yes, overblown sarcasm. She could though, have another breakdown, say something stupid, and the label shelves the project for years.)ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who want to delete this article is being subjective, these people doesnt look forward the sake of wikipedia, they are trying to delete an article with sources and official news about its release. I agree with the next comment, even if she lose control again, they will release it. IT not just her website that confirms it release, also MTV had announced it, and, as u can check on the article, Sony Japan. Keep this article, it's about a future/official/confirmed release. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of stupid sarcasm and bullcrap. They released Blackout during her mental breakdown, so even if she was going to have another one, theyw ould still release this. Plus, her official website posting an official press release makes is plenty to support it. Not to mention Amazon and MTV. ---Shadow (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her official site has confirmed this release and the new single. You can't delete it this time around.--Paul237 (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the obvious fact that we will clearly have an article about this at some point. Since the artist is so notable I'm sure we'll have enough non-trivial coverage by independent reliable media by the end of this AfD discussion to make this debate moot and little more than an exercise in guideline wonking. Before you nominate something like this you'll want to ask yourself will this be notable, as in 2 examples of non-trivial coverage by reliable independent sources, by the end of the AfD timeframe? If the answer is yes, then don't nominate it anyway. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is now up to 149 google news stories, last time it was AfD'd there were only 12 news stories. This was around before at Singles (Britney Spears album) and The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) was deleted speedily in the past, and AfD'd before. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) for earlier debates. Before not many of the contributors voted on it, but at least some appear to now. ALso deprotect the earlier names so that they can become redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP We have good sources from Spears' site, AND NOTABLE. Dennissell (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This album is confirmed to be released by Britney.com therefore,i thnk it should be keep.

Keep. It is an official album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affieq (talk • contribs) 25 September 2009 09:12 UTC

Comment I'd like to remind the closing admin that AFD is a discussion and not a vote. I also don't see most of these comments addressing notability concerns. Actually, most of them just say "it exists". Sure, Dale cited WP:CRYSTAL as a deletion reason, but it's not the only reason he used. I cannot find any reliable, third-party sources. That means other than Spears' website, other than fansites, other than fan-forums. It doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS for that reason. talking birds 15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now third party sources ie retailers advertising this collection and a tracklisting. Meets guidlines now. Jayy008 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MTV and Amazon have it. Also, now we have a tracklisting, so that reason can't be used. ---Shadow (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I see no reason to contradict the general rule here. Although the album has not yet been released, WP:CRYSTAL allows for future events if they are notable and are almost certain to occur. And in this case, even if the album were to be cancelled, there would likely be a lot of coverage surrounding the cancellation, making this notable as a cancelled album. Of course, in the unlikely event that it gets cancelled without significant coverage, deletion may prove appropriate, buy as of now I don't see any guideline preventing keeping. Rlendog (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sony Music Japan confirmed the tracklisting, more release dates have been revealed, so it doesn't fail any guidelines. --PlatinumFire 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please only vote once in a deletion discussion and use Comment for any other things you would like to add to the discussion. talkingbirds 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, hey, hey, esasy boy (or girl), i gonna quote wiki's page for AoD "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." that means that we can write Keep infinity of times, as long we aport something to the discussion, so please, read before you speak, thanks. Keep Keep Keep Keep Fortunato luigi (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notable coverage on MTV, etc. Dream Focus 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess this is allowed under the circumstances. JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of course the latest Britney Spears release is notable. It is an official release that will be promoted with a new single, that has gained press coverage from the likes of Billboard, MTV, Amazon, and the news is starting to trickle out. There is a tracklisting now. This page will only grow over the next few months. BambooBanga (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album has been officially confirmed by Britney's website, retailers have it, MTV and the press are mentioning it. It's notable enough, just with being a Britney Spears album (if we have Chaotic the EP) and a hits collection with new material. RayOfLight (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a tracklisting, an official confirmation, 3rd parties reporting about the album, a first single of that album that will be released within 13 hours, worldwide release dates and a cover will soon be released. Enough reasons to keep this article. --84.25.117.15 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOTION TO CLOSE EARLY This looks overwhelming. Miami33139 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is clear that more people wish to keep it, not to mention that since nomination, the article has been updated to include all needed information. No need for further discussion. ---Shadow (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added sources showing non-trivial coverage by NBC Miami and Rolling Stone Magazine. That should do it as it now satisfies WP:N. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Easilly meets our inclusion threshold per sources added by Vyvyan Basterd and others, Britney is noteable enough to deserve an exception from Crysal, and anyway that no longer appies to the albumn now we know it exists. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It can't be snowed as there are still delete !votes left. I'm sure the closing admin can judge the article based on what it looks like now and not when it was nominated and I'm sure the admin can see through the heckling of the first few keep !votes and the attempt to have an article deleted based on an essay with no reference to any actual policy or even guideline that would apply. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 20:34, 29 September 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 conensus to delete these articles. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

None of these is a notable character. No sources whatsoever, no out of universe notability for any of them, not even TRYING to assert notability. If deleted, move Jill Taylor (disambiguation) accordingly. Last AFD was redirected due to the nominator's WP:JNN argument; problems of sourcing, etc. haven't even come close to being fixed because there are none, and someone has issue with redirect it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, and most of this article is simply original research in the nature of personal observation of the tropes of a television programme. There is no real notability here, AFAIK, and none is asserted. I think this topic would be amply covered by a mention in the article about the series itself or perhaps one that covered the protagonist, and I'm sure there's already enough present to make a merge a useless exercise. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and do the merge. They were never done since the last AfD (under a different character's name) which resulted in a merge. Them From Space 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to merge? The list already contains sufficient info, and to close seems like process for the sake of process. Either way, Jill Taylor would need to be deleted so Jill Taylor (disambiguation) can be moved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Bah. This is one of those "before the internet so no reliable sources are going to be online" cases. Which was pointed out in the last afd. Deleting this solves nothing, since a major character from a long running tv show is generally going to be encyclopedic, but finding ANYTHING online is, at best, problematic. And since the nom has made it clear he dislikes just notable as a reason, I'll cite ignore all rules and wikipedia has no deadline as my reasons. This is certainly a situation where strict adherence to the rules does more harm than good. Barring a keep, I'd concede to a redirect/merge to an appropriate list of characters. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll let this rot for another ten years because nobody can be arsed to find any sources, just like everything else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tim and Jill, delete or redirect Randy - coverage of Tim and Jill in reliable sources, including substantive analysis in several books of their relationship in the context of feminism and family dynamics. The same can't be said for Randy. Jill's article should be moved to Jill Taylor (character) to make way for the dab page. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jill Taylor and Tim Taylor (character), main characters in one of the most popular American TV series of the 1990s. As Otto4711 points out, there is in-depth analysis of these characters in third-party sources. Examples include Hanke R (1998). "The “mock-macho” situation comedy: Hegemonic masculinity and its reiteration", Western Journal of Communication 62 (1): 74–93; as well as Craig S (1996). "More (male) power: Humor & gender in Home Improvement", The Mid-Atlantic Almanack (5): 61–84. There's also Lynn Spangler's 2003 book Television women from Lucy to Friends: fifty years of sitcoms and feminism‎ page 198[28]. I also found several newspaper articles that list Jill Taylor as one of the "most memorable sitcom moms" (or variations on that phrasing). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So ADD THEM. Don't let this unsourced piece of crap rot any longer. I already tried and failed to find anything of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I compliment you on your use of <big><big> wiki markup. I've done some of the work adding sources; anyone else is welcome to add some more from the Lynn Spangler book I noted above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of a limited group of notable TV character-moms.--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. The newly added sources do not focus on the character herself (passing mention while discussing tv or the show in general), so they are not sufficient to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages and pages that discuss the Tim and Jill Taylor characters, in particular in the Spangler book and the Hanke academic article; while the Craig article goes into detail about the conflict between Tim and Jill—not "passing mention" by any stretch of the imagination. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per erik's and Otto's sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 30 September 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riese the Series

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

This was a disputed speedy deletion candidate which I assessed. I'm not sure if there has been a credible claim of notability inherent in the material of the article -- the creator's disputing of the speedy nomination seems to tacitly contain that. This material has not yet been released for public viewing, but I thought there was a chance that it would qualify under the general notability guideline. Although I don't personally find the citations provided to be reliable within the definition of that term that I know, again there is some doubt in my mind, so I decided to submit this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A recent addition to the reference was added shortly after the dispute began. The reference cited is a new story broadcast on IMDb, the International Movie Database, which is the leading website for all news, updates and information regarding television and film productions. I believe this should satisfy as a claim at a newsworthy source, as there is no other source better connected with this industry or a database more heavily referenced.

In addition, one point of contention regarding the viewership claims it that while the series has not aired its episodes, its supplemental content in the form of the continuing Alternate Reality Game, which also fits into general scheme of the show, as a whole, itself. Rctheaet:talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The IMDb is not considered a reliable source for this information. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it isn't devoid of references but as of now with e series not yet, we only have the Examiner article as a reliable sources. Blog buzz doesn't establish notability, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were more coverage after is released. No prejudice to recreation then. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. An additional link has been cited that was posted yesterday evening as well. Sci-Fi Wired, the official news area of the SyFy network had coverage on us as well which is referenced. I understand, academically, that a network stations' own news/blog site is not under peer review. That being said, it does have a sizable editing staff and would essentially be under peer review of the the network and marketing persons affiliated with said network. In addition, this network has no affiliation with said series and would be reporting objectively. Finally, regarding notability, I would claim that the leading network for Sci-Fi/Fantasy filmed content reporting on this series, a Sci-Fi/Fantasy production, elevates it to notable as it exposes it to an incredibly large audience and lends it the credibility of its own status. See Wikipedia:Citing SyFy. Rctheaet:talk 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be multiple third party reliable sources listed as references on the article, which would indicate the series meets WP:N/WP:WEB. So what exactly is the problem as far as notability is concerned here? --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep: For a webseries that hasn't even started yet, its kind of surprising that it has so many sources already, albeit they are not all the world's strongest sources. I just added a link to a Tubefilter article, and noted that some of the other articles, like SyFy seem to be the types of sources that would naturally cover a sci-fi story. We already have a decent article going, I see no value to the project in deleting it at this point.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From all we have learned about this series so far this will be one of the best web series we have seen. The page as it stands provides a good basis on which to build.--Modelmotion (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author may have jumped the gun a bit, but this topic has received notable attention. If the decision is ultimately to delete I hope the closing admin would consider userfying the article so that it can be enhanced and restored once the series starts. Mathieas (talk) 20:38, 29 September 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) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randall L. Stephenson

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

Unnotable prson who fails WP:BIO. All three ELs are from directory sites. Prod removed by User:Yatesman with note of "The man is notable. He is the CEO of one of America's largest companies." Which does not make him notable. Only news mentions found are noting his becoming CEO, with little since beyond his name noted in the company's own press releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Forbes bio, WSJ bio, CEO of one of most notable companies in the world, and a picture attesting he attended the World Economic Forum. Highly notable by any standard: for sure the article needs expansion, not deletion. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That news search turns up quite a few hits from reliable independent sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Searching on Google News reveals plenty of coverage. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable with lots of coverage to choose from. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Extremely notable person. Major coverage, particularly in print media. If the notability guidelines somehow provide a basis for arguing that major business figures aren't notable because they don't generate reality-show-contestant levels of celebrity coverage, it means the notability guidelines need to be repaired. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This man is very notable. Just as Yatesman said he is the CEO of one of America's largest companies.Joshua D. D'Lima (R) Texas (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of ATT not notable? And as expected it has sources, including a bio with a portrait drawing in WSJ. There will be others, as G News shows. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 30 September 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 List of passports. NW (Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of passports

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

Creation of gallery only articles seems to be explicitly deemed a bad idea whenever they have come up in the past. This article was created as a gallery, and cannot be revamped to not be a gallery. It belongs on commons.

WP:IG: "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently created this article to exhibit contemporary passports from around the world, which is nowhere else in Wikipedia (others may exist in the Commons, but they are not current, or are comprehensive in timeframe); it is of some informative value (e.g., comparing), no more different than others (e.g., Gallery of sovereign-state flags), and is no more or less valid than a text-based article. However, assumptions of good faith aside, I wonder if the real reason why it was nominated for deletion was because the nominator is retaliating after having been reverted for misplacing Taiwan/Republic of China (and apparently has long-standing viewpoints on the topic); its current placement in the article is more equitable (compare with Kosovo, contention over which lead to the current structure) and simply harks of the structure in List of sovereign states. I considered including the contents in the passport article but concluded that would probably make it too lengthy; however, if this nomination stands, I may do just that. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of passports. The images would be useful there, rather than Passport. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could work! The only challenge I foresee is the treatment of entries/links which have articles but for which a passport image doesn't exist (yet). Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's a huge problem. The list could be converted into a table, with pictures for the ones that we have, and just left blank for ones we don't have for now. Wikipedia is a process anyway :) JUJUTACULAR | TALK 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course: that's what happens when one is sleep deprived. ;) Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of passports per User:Jujutacular. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of passports, photos are a good thing to have on a list. 159.83.196.200 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Gallery articles belong on Commons. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And then there's the real reason: ongoing challenge regarding Turkey's ___location. Hypocrisy from both the nominator and this commentator, given that they've edited the gallery and the nominator still reverts to push a POV, is flummoxing and exasperating. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the article useful and of certain encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, or merge. This is one of the coolest and most encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. EAE (Holla!) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss a merge with the list. Keep first, to discourage similar nominations arising from POV disputes on details of article content. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like the idea of a table, with a link to the relevant article in one column and an image or a thumbnail as a link to a Commons Gallery in another columnSPhilbrick T 18:01, 1 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 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gweeter

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

Cannot find a single source for this band, nor the label or the albums. "Gweeter" seems to be a word in a foreign language (which explains the Google Scholar/Books hits) but not a band someone found worth mentioning. No evidence of charting in any charts, releasing on a major/notable label or meeting any other criteria in WP:BAND or the general notability guideline. So Why 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant covergae for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in my search, I could find nothing that indicates this is a notable band. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:08, 25 September 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 Userfy. Moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film)

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

Only sources are unreliable; the variety and imdb are both based on user submissions and the accuracy of their content cannot be verified, absolutely no proof that the people listed as the cast are even in the film. The film is the first production by a non-notable film company, google does not reveal any basis behind the information listed. Terrillja _talk 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The film sounds awesome. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). IMDB is jumping off point for research elsewhere. Minimal surces are becoming availble [29]. Slated release fate is April 2010, not the 2009 as article is titled. Article is simply premature. I'd be glad to work with the author. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like you already have a lot on your plate. Wouldn't it be better for you to focus on creating fewer quality articles rather than amassing an insurmountable heap of pages in your userspace? Many of those articles were userfied several months ago [30][31][32] with some even in 2008 [33][34]. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insurmountable heap? You're judging me, my work, and my efforts to improve the encyclopdia? Sorry... but my plate is my plate... and I was not aware there was some deadline in how long an editor must wait until able to return an article to main space... and am a bit surprised you suggest that I abandon articles that might one day serve the project. Perhaps since your plate is so empty, you'll take this article under your own wing to work on as sources become available, and then bring back it back yourself as a quality article? If no, then I again state that I shall be happy to take it and work with the author. But thank you for advising I do less. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to assume good faith, I am not judging you. There is no deadline per se, but userfied articles are not meant to sit idle indefinitely (see here and point 3 here) and I have seen admins deny userfication requests because someone's userspace already has a fair amount of ex-articles waiting for attention. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith, yes. Your statement amassing an insurmountable heap, and then your showing that you have looked carefully through all my projects, and your suggestion that I do less... seemed a bit judgemental. That I wish to presevre the history, improve the article with the author's help, and then return it when appropriate, will then require either a DRV or at least the blessing of the deleting admin... and having the before and after will make their decision easier and avoid calls of CSD:G4 recreation. Efforts to improve the project, even when sometimes difficult, are never insurmountable... they just require work. I do not believe an admin will refuse my request to userfy, as I have pretty fair record of being able to revive the presumed dead and so improve the project. And again, you seem to have an empty plate, so why not help? Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you do less; I'm suggesting you don't spread yourself so thin. You have a lot of articles that haven't been touched in months. Userspace isn't meant to be used as a quasi-mainspace where content deleted from the main encyclopedia can remain forever, and that's precisely what you're using it for. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my raised eyebrows, but it is in precisely those assumptions toward my purpose...remarks made without your possibly knowing my thoughts, where you seem to judge my work and my dedication to Wikipedia. Is it possible we have such difffering iterpretations of WP:DEADLINE and WP:WIP? That an article might take more than 10 days or 10 weeks or 10 months for the sourcing to become available for its improvement, is a determination and a choice I make toward improving the project. Improving that which others thought unimprovable is a quite satisfying way to contribute. I appreciate your concern, but please do not feel obligated to watch over my shoulder and make a private determination of what and how I should contribute. So please stop making incorrect assumptions. And again, and since you do not have a full plate, why not help? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you're saying applies. You're misusing userspace. It's not meant to be some sort of graveyard for articles deemed unfit for the encyclopedia proper. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three times I have asked if you might care to help because your own plate is so empty. Three times you have ignored that request and denigrated the manner in which I contribute to the project. Your now quite specific accusation that I am misusing userspace is a much unappreciated and quite pointed assumption of bad faith that pushes the boundaries of WP:CIV almost past the breaking point. Please cease. I said I was willing to work with the author in bringing this article back to mainspace when notabilitry can be asserted and shown. I still am, whether you approve of my efforts to rescue and improve articles, or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I think if the community decides an article should be deleted then it should... actually be deleted. Userfication allows for the retention of that content and makes an end-run around all the policies regarding mainspace inclusion. That's why I am not going to help you.

You are misusing userspace. See the links I posted above and this applies as well. I commend your efforts to rescue content and work with new editors, even if I disagree with the logic behind userfication of deleted material, and I realize "indefinitely" (in terms of archival time) is not given a concrete definition in any of the relevant guidelines (although there have been attempts before, see here), but you have articles that have been sitting there for a long time. All I'm saying is that those articles require your attention and that it might not be a good idea to add more to your workload. That's it. I don't think your motives are malicious and I'm not criticizing you as an editor. This thread has long since lost relevance to the actual AFD and is getting lengthy, so if you would like to continue this discussion please come by my talk page. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way on the Deletion, but I have added a couple sources to the article, and I am very happy that someone has stepped forward to offer to work on it. Michael's offer to "incubate" the article until such a time as he can better-source the article, fill it out, and present it back to Wikipedia in an improved shape should be applauded. We should all be so willing to help other editors and their contributions. I have to say I find Doctorfluffy's apparent objection to this to be truly offensive. All editors should have as their primary purpose here the addition of content and the improvement that which is already there. We should not be here only to slap other editor's hands, delete things, quote home-made rules, and play Wikicop. Dekkappai (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources to indicate notability or verify information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Userfy Sources such as Variety seem fine - just needs putting on hold until nearer release. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I am not aware of any limits timewise to work on articles, of course anyone can move it into their own space at any time to work on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving the GFDL history for the eventual DRV seems appropriate. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify, or keep Perhaps when someone has written an article for an expected event that does not justify putting in mainspace yet, we need a specific holding area, so people can check. Or perhaps a tag--userified until month, year. Anyone can implement that tag. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there a reason major media sources would list it at all if it wasn't notable? Dream Focus 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:14, 28 September 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 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankroll Records

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant pages found. no WP:RS. Triwbe (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Disagree. Label mentioned by reputable news sources. Notable for being one of the rare Dubstep record labels. Has notable artists and affiliates. Professorchinese (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any ghits beyond local directory listings and the two references listed don't have the word 'bankroll' in them. Clubmarx (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 30 September 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 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Data Inc.

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

Article does not support notability of subject per WP:CORP. Ghits appear to be trivial, not amounting to the "significant coverage" required. ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RDI is a huge part of the IT community up in Alaska Per capita it would be a 35,000 employee company in the United States. Wikipedia already has an existing list of Alaskan based businesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Alaska

RDI is the major vendor for the State of Alaska and the oil companies, so there is plenty of news discussion at a local level about the products that RDI develops and its impact on the community. RDI is also a no bid IT services provider for the state of Texas a topic which is always in the news.

RDI has been featured in the Alaska Journal of Commerce and Alaska Business Monthly.

While I agree that RDI is not a national or international company, I think it meets the guidelines based on the community in which it operates (Alaska)

Note, I have a COI, as I work there. -James JamesBecwar (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete COI spam by employee/company owner. borderline notability, suggest deletion until such time as a neutral party can write a NPOV article. β^_command 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've told the author on the article's talk page, and at WP:COIN, the article needs coverage to show notability. The "per capita" claim above is some kind of weird voodoo math, the company claims less than 60 employees in the sole "reference" the article has (the reference, by the way, is a site where a business can add its own information to a directory). There are a number of hits in Gnews for the company but they're all trivial mentions, either press releases or general notices about who was hired to the company. The fact that Alaska is sparsely populated doesn't affect whether or not the subject meets WP:N or WP:CORP. -- Atama頭
Delete, fits the profile, non-referenced article about a non-consumer tech or computing business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company. Smartse (talk) 21:19, 27 September 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 CSD-G7. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SexTon (band)

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

Nonnotable local band, only one independent source which is a garden-variety mention in a local paper. Claims regarding Rock Band 2009 are unsubstantiated. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe later, as of yet fails to meet WP:GNG. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Oh. Guess I should have read the WP:GNG a little closer before I made this page. I'll just keep building their page in my sandbox until they do something more worthwhile. --SplenectomY (talk) 22:21, 23 September 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) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper Project

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

Fails general notability guidelines, was previously deleted as PROD and recreated with no additional references; I cannot find any reliable sources. Was PROD again, but due to the recreation I'm bringing it here instead Chzz ► 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like interesting freeware but there is no assertion of notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable. `R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It is a real project and i fixed the page. Would you like me to add some photos?elevatorman138 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete' No assertion of notability, and no obvious evidence of notability.SPhilbrick T 18:08, 1 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 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College, Karachi

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

As written the article is unreadable and Wikipedia would be better without it. Anyone who wants can try to rescue it by starting from scratch; it's probable that the college is notable. Chutznik (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATD policy states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Wikipedia has also determined that all high schools are notable but elementary and middle schools must demonstrate notability. This article, therefore, has 2 reasons to keep, one of them because of policy. I do agree that the article could be much improved. I might note that the article is not "unreadable". It is in English and in complete sentences. The text is not silly nor does it look like vandalism. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school and sources are available from which it can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable. --Milowent (talk) 20:00, 30 September 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 without prejudice against material from the articles being used elsewhere responsibly. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Patrick Flaherty

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

Absolutely no sources for out-of-universe notability. Only sources are episodes or trivia lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Spin City for a lack of sources. I'd go "weak keep" on Flaherty if the article mentioned the 1 Emmy and 3 Golden Globes won by Fox for playing the character but, alas, it doesn't. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this fictional character is the subject of independent reliable sources. Redirect is not a good option for the Winston article because there are two fictional characters and a real person (who probably is notable as a TV producer) that share the name. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I called for deletion, not redirection. There are other Randall Winstons that may warrant an article, but this ain't one of them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spin City as Michael Patrick Flaherty is a reasoable search term that would merit a DAB page per Otto's reasoning, and will then take readers to where the character has its notability. If it were sourcable to the extent as is possible for James T. Kirk or Hawkeye Pierce, I'd say keep... but as it is not, a redirect best serves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or better, merge. The confusion of names is no reason not to--that's what we have disam for. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 30 September 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) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka (airship)

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

No assertion of notability, lacks sources -- I am unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating notability, either. — neuro^(talk) 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not ad space. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already has more information on Eureka in Zeppelin NT article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 23 September 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 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele weiner davis

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:N. Of the five references listed, two are to her website, one is to a book discussing her work but not her life, and the other two are self-published sources (website of a conference she spoke at) and note that she won an award. There is no independent, non-trivial coverage of her life. Until that exists, the article should not. (I declined the speedy deletion for this, which is why I am listing it here.) Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very spammy, no assertion of notability (a quick search reveals none either). — neuro^(talk) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage, no notability. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 441 hits on google news (!) weighs in favor of notability; multiple books published some of which appear to have been popular; a Best-selling author per Time Magazine[35], tons of stuff beyond the trivial, e.g., CNN appearance in 2003 about one of her books [36]; not clear that any of the delete !votes have throughly examined subject; also, it appears that article was edited since last delete !vote to reflect awards won by subject. I would propose relisting to gather further input before closing. --Milowent (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see some of those, and while I believe they may establish notability for one or more of her books, there does not appear to be significant coverage of the author herself. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 30 September 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 -- Rationale: If we count noses, the deletes have it by a mile. But we don't count noses, we evaluate strength of argument. The main keep arguments seem to center around the notability of the disappearance, that it got natinonal media coverage, and that there might be something unusual about the disappearance, or that it might in future be that "the person may well be known for more". The delete arguments mostly refute the keeps, pointing to WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, and reminding us that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep (or a delete either). Also we are reminded of WP:CRYSTALBALL

The keep arguments are not compelling arguments and are more than refuted by those commenting in favor of deletion. Per WP:BLP1E one event does not compel notability, unless it's really a big deal. Mere mentions in multiple sources aren't enough. Per WP:NOT#NEWS routine things like this disappearance aren't notable. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we cannot base notability on future events that may not happen. Notability assertions have been refuted. This person is, if we are extremely charitable, marginally notable, and very marginally at best. For living persons (and let us hope she is living) we should default to delete in cases of marginal notability. But under a more reasoned evaluation of notability, she's not notable, and the crime is not notable (so a move to an article about the crime doesn't fit either). We are left with no possible outcome other than Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Pendley Biggers

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

Person known only for one event - WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLEASE READ:

There are numerous other individuals listed on Wikipedia that are "known only for one event" including Maura Murray, Lana Stempien, Benjaman Kyle, and many more. This individual is a missing person whose case has received substantial media coverage by CNN, America's Most Wanted, Nancy Grace and more. Her case is ongoing. If this article is a candidate for deletion, there are many others that should receive the same treatment.

I have no personal attachment to this case, and am writing this entry for educational purposes only. I have put a lot of time and effort into research of the topic. Please do not delete this article.

Coverage by reliable sources: CNN/Nancy Grace: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/14/grace.coldcase.biggers/index.html, America's Most Wanted: http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/brief.cfm?id=52948, Texas Equusearch: http://texasequusearch.org/2009/01/the-search-for-pam-biggers/

Also, this case has drawn attention to the "Amber Alert"-type notification system for missing/endangered senior citizens, called a "Silver Alert," as noted here: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=110632&catid=15

Thank you!MJW85 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "PLEASE READ" unsigned comment makes good point - what is the standard for missing persons cases, because they are very often WP:BLP1Es, yet have articles. --Milowent (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't perfect, could do with a bit of work especialy the bit about contacting authorities but There seems to have been enough media coverage to assert notability G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Probably) Delete I am unsure if we deserve an article for every disappeared person: this case seems to fit WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS pretty well. If there is substantial coverage, I'd keep it, but it seems there is not much more than a single CNN news report and a single WJHG one. I am willing to change my !vote if more coverage comes out. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply in spades. Furthermore defense is based around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject at hand is more unique than other missing person biographies on Wikipedia, as it deals with mental illness and that fact that this individual may very well be found alive and in doing so reveal further details that will published in the future. What warrants a decision to remove one missing person entry from Wikipedia, and not the hundreds of others? Case in point: List of people who disappeared mysteriously. This individual may very well end up being known for more than what the article currently contains. Like all other entries based on a currently living person, the end of the "story" has not been written. --MJW85 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the end of story will be written, and will be notable, come back and be my guest. In the meantime, I invite you to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. Everyone of us alive could be notable in the future, but this does not mean we must write on everyone of us for this single reason before it happens. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG: there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is merely an essay, and there is no consensus that drawing attention to similar articles is forbidden. I'm OK with discussing "other stuff" because it helps draw attention to holes in the guidelines or other articles that should meet similar fates.) Location (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not !vote two times in the same discussion (you're of course welcome to discuss it). It is also good practice to sign your comments. Would you mind putting your comment below your above keep !vote? --Cyclopia (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Never mind, it has been moved.--Cyclopia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the previous comment by Cyclopia was referring to a comment that was made by MJW85 then moved: [37]. Location (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, sorry! --Cyclopia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a newspaper. One event - and although it would be nice, we are not here to provide information as to how to contact authorities. We cannot have a bio for everyone who disappears. Law_{type! snype?} 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting case, but this isn't an encyclopedic biography. It's an article on her going missing. She's not otherwise notable. That's BLP1E. The coverage also doesn't seem significant and NOTNEWS surely applies here as well. As for the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, every article is different, of course, but I've nominated one of those for deletion and I've asked for opinions on another. Not sure what to do with it. Point is, even though it's an essay, it's still an argument that carries no weight. It just lists more articles that fail to meet policy. Lara 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this case, there does not seem to be sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article; WP:BLP1E applies. Robofish (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not enough of a significant event to avoid 'NOTNEWS' issues. Quantpole (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. I'm also concerned about the speculation within the article regarding her mental health (regardless of the sources) - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a newspaper (even though some wish we were) and BLP1E seals the deal. JBsupreme (talk) 06:03, 29 September 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) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Cultural Institute

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

No evidence of notability. A fake college that was a setting in 1 episode of Hawaii Five-O. Blargh29 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even under the old Wikipedia sense of entitlement where every episode, of every TV show, ever shown -- got its own article -- this would be a stretch. Worth mentioning perhaps in the existing article about the building; probably not that relevant even in an article about Season 1 of Hawaii Five-O. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a fictional element of a single episode of a TV cop show with no sources to establish notability --

Whpq (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)JForget 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and why bother relisting? There is no discussion. Nobody has bothered to address the notability issue. Get rid of it. Miami33139 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete but include mention in relevant line of List of Hawaii Five-O episodes --Milowent (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--is this non-notable non-existing thing still here? Drmies (talk) 20:58, 23 September 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 17:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Bigfoot of Florida

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

Unsourced, no real claim to notability. DreamGuy (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about sightings of a fictitious critter described in the title. Claims newspaper and media appearances, but Google News knoweth them not. Likely hoax article about a fictitious hoax; now that's what I call meta! (Or maybe mota.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no indication this is a real hoax (for lack of a less oxymoronic turn of phrase). Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmm. There's a ton of press out there about bigfoot type sightings in florida, e.g., [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Don't know if there's enough to allow this one a separate article, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax about a hoax.--Milowent (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bigfoot has some presence in pretty near every state, with a fairly large number of them in Ohio, it seems, although Florida seems well infested too. But unlike the ordinary Bigfeet you see elsewhere, this one can fly. Bigfoot is fairly clearly notable. The subspecies endowed with flight? Not so much yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what Ihcoyc said. Chutznik (talk) 17:38, 23 September 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 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Alazhar

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

Not notable person, IMDB lists 3 works as floor runner and as a director for a short film. No awards, not 1 feature film. Prod removed by creator. feydey (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the upcoming movie, City of Paradise, was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Paradise in April. feydey (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside Director and Misc Crew, she has also been credited as a writer on IMDB -- all claims have been backed up and referenced. I was simply dispersing information from IMDB, and trying to help Wikipedia look great by adding pictures. I'm sorry if you feel this is not enough to warrent a Wikipedia page, but the content has been active for months, and never questioned before. I believe as a reference of both the person and the company (Smoking Guns Productions) it provides a valuable source of information to Wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daythatnevercomes (talk • contribs)

Delete - adding pictures of non-notable people doesn't make wikipedia look great; it makes it look like myspace. There are no reliable sources writing about this person. The single writing credit is for a non-notable film. There is zero evidence for any notability which isn't surprising given that the person appears to be just getting started in her creer as evidenced by the IMDB listed credits. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:42, 23 September 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) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Water Organization

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

Non-notable NGO, fails WP:ORG -- minimal news coverage (3 hits in GNews). References on the page mainly establish that other organizations mentioned in the article exist. Article created and expanded by employee who is clearly seeking to raise its profile (heavy on "Mission"); this wouldn't matter if there were sources to write a proper article, but there aren't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.
Hmm... A spammy entry by a single purpose account, also presumably a COI. This org certainly sounds notable reading the entry, but their webpage is a single page with no links, and it's not even the first Google hit for "World Water Organization". And there's a distressingly low number of Gnews hits. It does seem to be involved with the UN somehow, but it's not clear how exactly. Needs betting sourcing, less promotion, and some evidence that it meets the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one paragraph of copyvio text from the entry. I expect there's lots more. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity and Hairhorn: Thanks for your comments. I do work on behalf of the WWO, however, I am undertaking the work pro-bono because it is an organization and a cause I care deeply about. The organization is an up and coming non-profit organization which has already run one conference at the UN - with over 300 delegates from close to twenty countries - and sponsored an earlier conference by NYIT. The Executive Board members discussed are all former employees of the United Nations, but continue to undertake special projects through the United Nations - even if not publicly recognized as doing so. The additional board members are senior members of the United Nations, the World Bank and private industry as well. Unfortunately, the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director have not place strong importance on developing fancy websites or wiki articles to promote their causes and achievements in the past - which makes it difficult to reference everything they have achieved. As with many who work in Government and UN circles, much of the work they are involved in happens behind closed doors in closed session diplomatic meetings. The work they have done publicly is widely recognized, and I continue to add websites justifying the claims made in their biographies. These are incredibly learned people who achieved a significant deal in their lifetimes. I recognize you desire wiki pages to adhere to editing standards and I continue to improve the articles to meet this standard. I am a Masters graduate and understand the importance of referencing and avoiding plagiarism or copyright abuse. As a new user, I was inadequately prepared with sufficient references at my first posting - this is something I recognize and accept. Further, I recognize the WWO is one of many organizations in this field. The WWO does not seek to compete with others, but instead to complement their work, to contribute where it can and to build cooperative arrangements with other similarly minded organizations. I believe your criticisms and call for deletion of the organization's wiki page and the three bios is unnecessarily unfair and aggressive. I welcome comments that will assist myself and others who seek to strengthen the credibility of these wiki pages rather than being so quick to have them removed. Shannon.barnes (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/reply First, sorry if I have offended anyone, it was not my intentions. Since you just admitted working for the WWO, then I just want to let you know that there is Conflict Of Interest regarding your articles since you are a new user [43] or WP:COI. Therefore try to be less personal. I totally respect you values, engagements but try to keep a neutral point of view. Finally, I have seen that you have put alot of effort in finding sources/references but from what I can see, the majority of those references only mentionned WWO's name (such as being a sponsor) and does not really talks about this organization itself; there are not strong enough in supporting the article's notability... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly delete with no prejudice to recreating if the organisation gets more reliable sources in the future. Their website seems to have moved up in Google's ranking to first in the list, but it's still a one page work-in-progress and furthermore a primary source. Found some fleeting mentions of the organisation on CNBC and the UN, but that does not seem to qualify as significant enough coverage to me as yet. I have dropped a few lines of friendly advice on article creator's page. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the COI editor's statement that this is an up and coming organisation probably explains why there is no coverage of significance to establish notability. No prejudice against recreation when it does become notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userify. Two conferences a;ready held is enough for notability since there are sources for them. I rewrote a good part of it to a less promotional tone, to assist in rewriting the rest either now, or after the next conference and some more references to it. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two conferences with virtually no news coverage. Yes, there are sources for the fact that the conferences happened -- but did anyone pay attention? Again: a total of 3 Gnews hits for this thing -- pretty slim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well referrenced and notable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It has been more than a week since I have pointed out the problems related to the references/sources (see above) and yet the situation has not changed. Author has not provided any additional sources in which the article really talks ABOUT this organistion and not just mentionning its name such as being a sponsor. (Maybe there is just no more references that talks about WWO? In this case, notability is questionable...)Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question -- what are we going to do with this one? I repeat that there are no sources to write a proper article here -- if it is kept, most of the text will have to be removed anyway. (Some of it is simply off-topic, e.g. the big MDG list.) I'd be delighted to see improvement instead of deletion, but I don't see how that is possible. I simply think it is too early to have an article on this organization -- it might become notable, but it isn't yet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 1 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 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Mayoral Election, 2009

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

Contested PROD. This election isn't really notable as it doesn't cover any major political area, and the circumstances behind the election don't qualify for notability There are no "antics" noted as stated on the talk page, and there are no other reasons included that establish notability. Mayors choose not to run for re-election all the time but that doesn't make this case any more notable than any other. ArcAngel (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not a wire service. This seems like every run-of-the-mill mayoral election and compared to most elections this seems kind of light. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone explain to me what's going on here?
1. My impression is that Finkbeiner's term should have be up next year rather than this year. Is this right?
2. It looks like the recall petition against Finkbeiner was initially accepted and the recall election was set for November, but it looks like the Ohio Supreme Court blocked it[44]. But it seems like an election is happening[45]. I'm confused.
3. I see references to Finkbeiner not seeking another term. Is he not contesting a recall election, resigning and letting a special election replace him, or serving out the rest of his term but not running in the next regularly scheduled election?
If this is a recall election, it's notable (second mayoral recall in Ohio history). If this is a special election to replace a mayor who resigned in the face of a recall campaign, it may or may not be notable. If Finkbeiner would have faced re-election in November 2009 regardless, I don't understand the point of the recall campaign.--Chris Johnson (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not the Toledo Blade, and there are plenty of other places where someone can place information about an election in Toledo, Ohio. Perhaps this can be merged and redirected List of mayors of Toledo, Ohio. There is no inherent notability for local elections, even in a city of 300,000 people, and this is most certainly not notable outside of the local area. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:31, 23 September 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 nomination withdrawn, deletion discussion overtaken by editing of the article. Closing without prejudice against the nomination of the new article for deletion. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3D Video games

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

The article is largely made up original research and would have to be rewritten almost entirely. It also fails to define what is a 3D game being substantially different from just 3D graphics inside a game. In aiddition there is no reason to note the that the term 3D game is used for such games given the limited number the article lists as it fails verifiability from any independant third-party source. Google search results show just the opposite - 3D video game is often used to for the the way in-game graphics look. 陣内 _Jinnai 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Right now the article seems to simply a list of of games, but such a list would be endless and determining objective criteria for inclusion would be impossible. There might be a case for a more technical article, describing 3D modeling, motion capture, collision detection, etc., but that material probably exists elsewhere already.--RDBury (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a category. BUC (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With what there is currently, lack of verifability. MuZemike 22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking at the example game mentioned, Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves, it seems the intention is to write an article about stereoscopic videogames that use 3D-glasses and the suchlike. If this is the criteria, then this would make a valid article - something like Stereoscopic video game, but there's not much to merge to it from here: for example the opening statement is factually incorrect (there were a few stereoscopic games for old 8-bit platforms, not to mention the Virtual Boy.) Marasmusine (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misunderstood the premise of the article. As you said, a different title would have been better. In any case, there still doesn't seem to be any actual article there, hence my not being able to tell what it's supposed to be about. I suggest that any actual content for this subject could be added to Stereoscopy until there is enough to split into a different article.--RDBury (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails core policies with some controversial claims.陣内 _Jinnai 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I know there are at least 3 people proposing deletion but no discussion was made since the bot fixed the bug and listed the AFD so I will relist it so more people get a chance to participate. JForget 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, when I skimmed the discussion above I thought we were talking about an article with some kind of actual content. This is just 17 meaningless words followed by a short meaningless table. There's nothing here of even mild value. Propaniac (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename it to List of games made in RealD Cinema. Or List of games that require glasses to be seen in 3D. Since the term 3D is used in games to mean something totally different, most games these days labeled 3D as opposed to isometric, etc. at a glance some might be confused. We need to clarify this in the article, and perhaps a rename. Are there other systems out there which allow games to be made in 3D? Didn't Sony Playstation 3 have some sort of holographic thing for one of its games? Dream Focus 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and expand): the topic is certainly notable; the article requires vast expansion of course. Note, 3D here is primarily about stereoscopic effects rather than a typical "3D" graphics projected onto 2D viewing area of a monitor that most people have at home. A real extension of such games is an interactive 3D cinema and TV, which are booming in the research and industry circles. Given the stereoscopy aspect, which may require wearing the 3D glasses (anaglyph or others), the list is NOT endless today as it is not necessarily about traditional. --Mokhov (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no references and the article is making several controversial claims, including the first 3-D video game and several that are violations of NPOV like "[s]oon video-games are going to be in RealD Cinema", that 3D video games are not referring to graphics (in spite of evidence I have shown to the contrary).
  - Well presumably through editing and expansion these usually get fixed. This is a very minor NPOV violation. --Mokhov (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In whose opinion? Your's? I don't believe its minor as it is a central crux of the article.陣内 _Jinnai 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Also with 4 entries it's not enough for a list.陣内_Jinnai 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This agrees with my point the table would not be an "endless" list :-) If I get some time I fill find the sources and expand the article before it is deleted. In the worst case perhaps I will ask for userfication. --Mokhov (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The number of items is not relevant. These are new types of games, and when reading about the technology, many will want to see what games have been made with them. It will grow in time. There is nothing wrong with this list, it meeting all purposes for a Wikipedia list, listing blue links to aid in navigation. Dream Focus 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all agree to simply rename it List of stereoscopic video games? Wouldn't that solve all the problems? How many support this name change, and how many object to it? Dream Focus 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't solve NPOV problems and the lack of any kind of verifiability, let alone notability of the subject matter.陣内_Jinnai 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can click on the blue links to those games listed, and it says they are stereoscopic video games. You can easily verify they all exist. Dream Focus 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really. The current article makes it unclear whether said games are completely stereoscopic or only certain scenes, whether they are stereoscopic for every platform or just some, whether they all require 3D-glasses or use other methods.
      On another note, should the article be moved to Steroscopic video games or, more appropriatly, List of steroscopic video games, I would ask that an admin delte the link to 3D video games as the link isn't appropriate as mentioned before, 3D video games aren't traditionally sued to mean steroscopic. Moving it would get rid of one of the problems, but others still remain.陣内_Jinnai 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of video games featuring steroscopic components then? I'll see what their official websites and press releases call them. Dream Focus 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think we should have an article, List of stereoscopic video games. I'd be happy to help start one from scratch. Marasmusine (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is short. A rename is easier to do than just copying the exact same information over to a new ___location. Dream Focus 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is appropriate named now. List of stereoscopic video games does what a Wikipedia list is suppose to, and aids in navigation, linking to the sites of these games, which are referred to there and/or news media sources as stereoscopic games. It is the officially term for this sort of game. I have added in a clear definition at the start to show the difference between this type of game and 3D games, that one of the complaints of the nominator. Any original research I have removed, that just two sentences, everything else easily clarified. Dream Focus 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep per the developments the last few days. I'll agree that the rename and potential expansion of the definition of a "stereoscopic game" might work. MuZemike 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given recent developments, I wish to withdraw this nomination.陣内 _Jinnai 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Seeing as how the nomination is being withdrawn, and the current lack of content in the article, I'd like to suggest this article be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator.--RDBury (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:INCUBATE is a good idea here since the nomination is being withdrawn; it can live as a stub and being improved in the main space rather than in the incubator. --Mokhov (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the same as deleting it. There is enough content for the article, plus this is a notable topic, more games being made and getting plenty of coverage in this new genre. Dream Focus 23:56, 28 September 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 any usable content to Economy of Panama. Skomorokh, barbarian 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Forecast of Panama

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

Classic example of what wikipedia is not.

Economic forecasts will change often, and with problematic citations. There's not a unifying concept here either that's talked about in notable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like WP:Synthesis to me. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Economy of Panama. As per nom, this will change forever, like writing Current Events in the United States, and as such is unencyclopedic. But I see no problem in having a section in the economy article on GDP forecasts - it wouldn't be any different than polls in election articles. Joshdboz (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, its fits fine here Economy_of_Panama#Forecast. Plus, its a more logical place for people to look when seeking information on Panama's ecomony. --Milowent (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This should be covered at Economy of Panama. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 13 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 01:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge the information is usable, and not OR , since its just the collection of sourced information, not drawing conclusion from it, but it does not warrant a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, articles that are pure stats are verbotten under WP:NOT#STATS. Also, it kind of is problematic from a WP:NOTCRYSTAL perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I say it's OR because not only is it making small conclusions about the data now ("Because the real estate supply began in April 2009 an adjustment process downwards") but because the selection and framing of the stats is going to be OR. If it was "forecasts" or had some indication it was a survey of available data (the chart is fine) then it'd just have stats issues. But the way it's going it looks a lot like a conclusion as to what the forecast is. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' I agree with Eusebeus - to the extent that anything in this article should be saved, it belongs in Economy of Panama. As that has taken place, there's no need to retain this article. (Whether that material belongs in any article is an open question in my mind, but there's no justification of a separate article.)SPhilbrick T 17:54, 1 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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GeneMark

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

Not notable. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Essentially an advert. Bladeofgrass (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't be daft. The software is free, so how can it be an advert? It's one of the most widely known and widely used gene prediction programs, and it was the first to use Markov chain models. If you want to judge popularity, type "Gene prediction" into Google. GeneMark is the second hit after Wikipedia! I can tell you didn't look for sources or didn't know how to assess them as there's lots out there.[46][47][48][49]. "Automated methods for prokaryotic genefinding like GLIMMER (Salzberg et al., 1998; Delcher et al., 1999; http://www.tigr.org/software/glimmer/), ORPHEUS (Frishman et al., 1998) and different versions of GeneMark (Lukashin and Borodovsky, 1998; Besemer and Borodovsky, 1999; Besemer et al., 2001) have been widely used in genome sequencing projects [see for instance (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2002; Cerdeno-Tarraga et al., 2003; Wei et al., 2003; McLeod et al., 2004)]."[50] Fences&Windows 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a cursory Google News search turns up a large volume of results and with a quick perusal of the articles such as [51], [52], [53], and [54] easily show that this software is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several academic sources covering it, notable algorithm. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:25, 23 September 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 17:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Barker (writer)

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

Problematic substub claims the subject was a defendant in a notable trial and subsequently became a writer. No reliable sourcing, basically no content except material that relates directly to the claim of a criminal record. Might be rescue-worthy if it checks out with reliable sourcing, but without sourcing it's a serious BLP problem. Durova³¹¹ 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly any reliable sources for John Barker. The lack of citations, among other things, makes this article a BLP violation. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:06, 23 September 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 Aerobie. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobie Megatop

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

Product placement, little notability, few reliable references -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Article was created by inventor of this product, who has also created notable product Aerobie, this could probably be merged into that article as a spinoff or subsequent product.--Milowent (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Alan Adler - Inventor:

I tried to provide factual information, without touting the product. If any part of the page is objectionable, I'd like to correct that. Just let me know.

Wikipedia has pages (which I did not create) on my other inventions. They benefit me, yet they also provide useful information. Wikipedia has thousands of pages which benefit the creators or makers of products, yet also provide useful information to the users of Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Alan Adler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Adler (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the real Alan Adler. --Milowent (talk) 12:14, 12 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 06:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short description of the product and redirect to Aerobie. Every product does not need its own Wikipedia article. Propaniac (talk) 15:20, 23 September 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. Discussion regarding a potential merge can continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Lentin K-8 Center

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

No notability; no facts available from independent reliable sources, hence fails WP:V, WP:GNG Chzz ► 02:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very quick search of Google News found sources of information (as well as the school's own website and the Miami-Dade County Public Schools website) which I have added. A subscriber to Newsbank would probably find more (I only looked for naming in the summary), as would a local search. This article is in need of expanding, but not deleting. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant school district, as is the consensus for elementary schools. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most elementary schools are not notable but this is an exception, and a particularly large elementary school. A surprisingly large number of sources are available, that include many awards, here and here from which the page can be expanded. Most of the expansion will need to await an editor who has access behind the paywalls but that is not a deletion reason. TerriersFan (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:42, 23 September 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. There is no consensus to just delete this page outright, but all agree that this content should not remain in article space in this form. There's no agreement about what ought to be done, though. I suggest that interested editors continue to develop ideas about what to do with this type of content in general (possibly through a RfC with a variety of options) and implement it by moving, merging or redirecting this page as required. Sandstein 11:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phage monographs

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

I saw this at prod and brought it here, because I think the community should see this--it raises some general questions. I've known about the article, and never been happy with it because it does not really fit into the framework of an encyclopedia, and would seem to violate NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A few of these works are notable themselves & articles could be written; a good number are part of notable series, about which articles could be written. Not all of them are. We certainly could make a list of the ones we wrote articles for when we wrote them.

But there are other considerations: It would be possible to include all of these in a bibliography section of the already long article on Bacteriophage--and it might seem that a split would make more sense. Some of our articles have extremely extensive bibliographies, listing the important and the unimportant equally--sometimes with the clear objective of listing everything possible on a subject. Is this a role for a general encyclopedia? (but even if not, should we expand our role and do it anyway?) Again, If we accept articles listing all the books of a highly notable writer, and we certainly do, should we perhaps accept articles listing all the books on a notable subject? Another solution is article bibliography subpages, but that would obviously takes some discussion. Another possibility,discussed a little, is a WikiBibliography project; yet another is a Bibliography space within the project. These are really strategic planning considerations.

So the question to be is whether we should accept this as an experimental exception, or merge it, or delete it and save what content is notable. Myself, I'm undecided DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I am inclined to think that WP should offer some room for bibliographies; it's the kind of thing that would be helpful and as long as we don't have a project, maybe this should be it. Let's face it, it's a lot more helpful and encyclopedic than some other content we have. It is discriminate, being constrained by its topic--though the sections starting "the following have not been sufficiently scrutinized" suggest that even this might be somewhat difficult and would, in effect, rely on reliable sources to establish whether they are included correctly. (Now that would be a monk's job--does that expression exist in English?) What's next is, perhaps, an annotated bibliography...eminently useful, and very, very hard to ever make complete (believe me--I'm working on one--but this is not an argument against the idea, of course, though it would be OR, really). For now, but I am very interested in other opinions, I'm going to go with keep, though I think that DGG has raised some interesting bigger issues, and though I think also that the current format needs editiong (but that's for another forum). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with relevant wikiprojects, but IMO bibliographies belong there, not main article space. I pinged two WPs that may adopt it (which I would strongly recommend). NVO (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick search for WP:bibliographies shows that many project pages have a subpage for relevant bibliography, but I'd love to see some more cohesive guidance on the topic. WP:LIB or the WP:Village Pump may be a better place for the broader discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 14:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to delete the article and move the information out of the article space where it could be used to source encyclopaedic articles. This information does not seem to be acceptable except as a reference list, so merging does not seem to be a good option to me. I am also afraid that leaving the article as an experimental exception will, in the long run, equate to leaving the article to stagnate. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material that will be useful to source articles already is; although there are probably several dozen or so articles that need writing on individual bacteriophages, in addition to probably over a hundred biographies, they would not use monograph references much beyond the ones already used in the present articles. One of the problems of this article is that it aims at being comprehensive and includes the unimportant as well as the important. It would all be useful however, if one were going to write an original history of the subject at the research level, including the Russian work. It however does not now include work in non-Western languages.

I would say go ahead with either deleting the list or moving it to the bibliography section of the Bacteriophage page. I admire all the hardwork that has gone into making this list, but, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an almanac. If one Bibliography series is let through, just imagine what sort of topics would turn up with bibliographic lists? We'd end up having the same monograph or book or paper quoted in ten different places and it would clutter up the current system. Even if left in as an experiment, these kind of articles will tend to stagnate, as Neelix has mentioned above. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikipedia namespace and delete from mainspace. I can see this as an aid to help people write articles (similar to the websites list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Resources for example), but as a standalone product I don't see how we'd decide what to include and what to say about it. The current revision has some other problems (like a paragraph-long essay about publishing on paper versus publishing on the web, which is rather off-topic), but those are not reasons for deletion (just for cleanup). Kingdon (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what do we think about Category:Bibliographies? List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing, Bibliography of the War in Darfur, Richard Nixon bibliography, or Bibliography of the 1837-1838 insurrections in Lower Canada. Rl (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List of important publications in ... articles are different: they are intentionally a selected list of of the most important publications, with the inclusion of the justified by sources and consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other ways There are slightly more complicated ways of handling these that could be considered. One of the, is the method adopted by Citizendium: bibliographies on subpages in addition to the actual references for the articles. A good example is the one for Pittsburgh (I note, btw, that the article on bacteriophages there does not have one--since the licenses are now compatible, a step that could be taken regardless of the decision here is to copy it there.) At the moment, this function is turned off for article space, but it could be turned on. What could immediately be done is having them as a subpage of talk space--or as mentioned above, of project space. Another, more elaborate way in structure but in function very similar, is the addition of a Bibliography space, to correspond with article space and talk space. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of bibliography space sounds like a positive step in the evolution of Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move in a bibliography subpage as per DGG. This has really to be done, and it would be a wonderful addition to WP articles in general. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:27, 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, JForget 12:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those suggesting a bibliography subpage: we do not have a bibliography tab the way citizendium does (yet?). In the meantime: just move it to Bacteriophage/Bibliography? I thought sub pages are throwned upon!? Rl (talk) 12:54, 24 September 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. Black Kite 20:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Being (Ascended Master Teachings)

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

The term "Comic Being" is no more notable than many other terms made up by the two "spiritualists" quoted to death in this unnecessary and biased article. If this definition of a non-notable term possibly coined by Elizabeth Prophet and Joshua Stone needs an article (rather than being a one-line mention in the associated lengthy articles about these authors), then why not all the other terms they endlessly repeat in their books such as Cosmic Map, Way Beacons, Cosmic law and Cosmic Ascension? The bias of the article is evident by the lack of balanced sources, relying on massively over-quoting the same authors in order to give the article an illusion of validity. There are too many articles on Wikipedia about the same UFO cults and this is an ideal one to delete to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Ash (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable concept,: conflation of several rival cultists' teachings constitutes synthesis and original research. Merge into ascended master or some such, perhaps? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an interesting and useful article to anyone who wants to do research into the beliefs of New Age religions. The Ascended Master Teachings is a group of religions based on Theosophy, they are not UFO cults, they do not mention UFOs or flying saucers. Only the one ascended Master Teacher Joshua David Stone mentions Ashtar as being an Ascended Master along with the traditional ones, a surprising development, as this is a unique inclusion of an alleged UFO related entity as a deity of these religions. Keraunos (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UFO cult) For the text of the nomination I was only going by the exact same "Cosmic Beings" listed in this article that are also listed on UFO religion (which UFO cult redirects to). If you think that article is factually incorrect, perhaps you'd better start correcting it (with appropriate sources; oh, though I note you have already made significant edits to that page in the past). BTW, I can see you are rapidly adding references and "Further reading", unfortunately you appear to be adding sources that do not actually use the term "Cosmic Being" which is rather the point of the article. Perhaps you could check that they do rather than expecting other editors to do the work?—Ash (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There is only one Cosmic Being listed in both articles--Ashtar--and "he" is a "Cosmic Being" by definition according to the Ascended Master Teachings because he is regarded (by some, such as Joshua David Stone) as an Ascended Master that is not from Earth. Keraunos (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The further reading section books do not need to mention the term "Cosmic Being". They are books to refer to for anyone who wants to research the history of these religions in general, or are skeptical books such as the one by K. Paul Johnson, that debunk these belief systems. Keraunos (talk)

Wikipedia articles do not carry sections for general research. "Further reading" sections are not the norm, but where they do exist any source should be directly relevant to the article and in preference it should be integrated as a reference. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. In this case a list of books not directly relevant just seems to add fake validity. If you wish to discuss the matter further please do so on the article talk page.

BTW Sanat Kumara is mentioned on both pages as well as Ashtar, I didn't bother checking any other names.—Ash (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason Sanat Kumara is mentioned on both pages is because the modern Theosophical guru Benjamin Creme believes, unlike traditional Theosophical gurus, that Sanat Kumara came to Earth in a flying saucer (Creme is a former member of the Aetherius Society). Keraunos (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your earlier statement - they are not UFO cults, they do not mention UFOs or flying saucers - just looks slightly contradictory now you have two "Cosmic Beings" flying around in saucers based on the statements of people that you call "gurus". Perhaps you should stop flogging this one.—Ash (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like original research and a point of view fork from the Ascended Master Teachings article to me. The "Ascended Master Teachings" article itself, in my opinion, also needs a bit of work, but at least it contains a few core reliable independent sources, this one appears to be a grouping of editor selected cherry-picked quotes from primary sources in an attempt at pushing their own particular perspective on the subject. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE the entire reference list is primary sources. Furthermore WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play as this is quite literally a list of stuff - chiefly proposed entities who the authors claim exist at various places in the galaxy. Theosophy ~~may be~~ is notable but that doesn't mean that every article related to Theosophical ephemera is likewise notable. Delete article and merge any notable commentary into bio page for authors of primary source material. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans! This material does not belong as an independent article and the writers know that. Redirect it somewhere. Miami33139 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are all in-house. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and start over. Aside from Abductive's note that all the sources are in-house, I feel compelled to point out that we are not a guide book for any religion whatsoever, be it new age, pagan, Abrahamic, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. I say start over for a simple reason - if we are to have an article about this subject, it needs to be far more objective than it is, and rely on other materials that are not from in house. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 23 September 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 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Llani

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

Contested PROD. No reason was given as to why this article passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. The league isn't fully professional. Spiderone 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owwtee

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

WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Was PRODed, but author declined. Favonian (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as A7/borderline A3. ƒ(Δ)² 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I can't find a speedy category it fits into this clearly fails WP:NEO and WP:ONEDAY. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly an unused neologism/dictionary entry, no point sending it to Wiktionary because nobody actually uses it. Might be a rendering of OWTTE. Hut 8.5 12:39, 23 September 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) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News3.0

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

Non-notable neologism; the article serves only to promote the linked blog and the new term. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice for recreating later: no reliable sources found in the first 50 Google hit (with the caveat that some were not in English) and also per WP:CRYSTAL -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable with no reliable sources and problably a hoax. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad case of madeupitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 23 September 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) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bum-Soo

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

PROD removed for no reason. The K-League hasn't recorded an appearance. [55] Spiderone 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about an athlete who has never played in a fully pro league and there is no evidence that it would pass the general guideline. Jogurney (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 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) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of law firms in India

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

Long list of law firms in India with no indication of notability or reason for listing. Limited sourcing of firm names. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTDIR. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is clearly contrary to WP:NOTDIR. TJRC (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put a note on the talk page 3 months ago pointing out the issues that the page has. No attempt to fix it or address the problems although numerous firms have been added in the meanwhile. I see no likelihood of this changing. danno 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not the Yellow Pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A directory. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we are not a directory. Them From Space 23:18, 23 September 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. Weak delete, actually, but on the whole we are not convinced of ther notability. Could probably be resubmitted (by somebody not affiliated with the subject) if new sources proving notability are found. Sandstein 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Radford

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

Wikipedia is not the white pages; no reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. gnews shows some minor scifi publications, nothing reliable to me. Coatrack for advertising and pseudomemorial page. tedder (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--Marc Kupper|talk 06:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Phyllis Ann Karr per this news item. tedder is right about the lack of reliable sources, I see nothing but passing mentions and reviews on bloglike websites. I deprodded this thinking that "hey she's been published by DAW Books and Penguin Books", but according to WP:AUTHOR (and recent talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)), that doesn't matter. The birthdates for the two pen names don't match, but much Googling reveals this is the same author. Katr67 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Very weak Keep - If Irene Radford and Phyllis Ann Karr are the same person then she is going to extraordinary lengths to maintain two identities. I'd say no to merging/redirecting the two without a very-very reliable source showing they are the same. I did a quick check for reliable-source articles about Irene Radford but did not find any. I've e-mailed her rather than beating around the web. Usually someone with 20 to 25 novels from major publishers in 15 years manages to snag some coverage but even with the books I was only seeing under 300 word book reviews. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reply from Irene Radford though reformatted and changed to 3rd person:

"What more do they want?" I've heard that one from many different people, or their fans, that insist the WP article subject is notable. I think some of them even read WP:N and related pages. They see 2.5 million or more junk articles about non-notable subjects on Wikipedia with 40,000 more getting added every month and wonder why today is the day their article was one of the 106 picked for AfD... (there's 740 pages in Category:AfD debates at the moment and I divided that by 7 to get an estimate of the number AfDed per day).

Anyway - so far she's does not look notable per a strict interpretation of WP:N or WP:AUTHOR though if she has a consistent trend of three or four minor awards per year then maybe that'll do. I'll e-mail her back and see if I can figure out a gentle way to explain "What more do they want?" --Marc Kupper|talk 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG's comment below about no more than 550 libraries made me realize Radford likely qualifies under WP:AUTHOR point 4 "or had works in many significant libraries." I'm changing my comment to a weak keep. It's not a full keep as it seems we are really scraping away at the barrel to find evidence plus it's WP:OR on my part to put the list together rather than being able to cite a reliable 2nd party. The list below shows the number of libraries holding copies of each novel. I did not include any of the anthologies that contain her stories. Most, if not all of the "Irene Radford" books have also been translated to and published in German. I did not include those. The actual list is available at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Irene Radford#Library holdings as I had trouble with getting collapse tables to also be indented in this thread.

All of Irene Radford's and her pseudonym's novels are available from public libraries with many of them available in 200 or more libraries. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So at this point, would Irene Radford qualify under points 3 and 4 to some extent? Even after scrubbing away the PR-fluff? --健次(derumi)^talk 02:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I'm tempted to change to a delete because I feel WP:N is important and that's not being met at all. We simply don't have any information from reliable secondary sources meaning the entire article is WP:SELFPUB material other than the list of books can be verified. While she seems to qualify under points 3 and 4 to some extent I'm not happy with that being the only thing propping an article in place. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heather Alexander's 2006 album Merlin's Descendants is based on Irene Radford's fiction, according to that article. I won't argue whether or not that is notable in itself, as Irene is a friend of mine (other than perhaps clean-up or formating, I don't feel I should be editing the article of a personal acquaintance). How Wikipedia works is a bit foreign to her, so I'm trying to let her know what information the article would need in hopefully plainer English. As the article currently stands, it's a huge mess with vague or useless sources. --健次(derumi)^talk 22:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Heather Alexander album is good as a WP:AUTHOR point 3 item. I've added it to the article. I'm not too worried about the article being a mess as the focus is on establishing if Irene Radford is notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now. The evidence that Radford=Karr is thin, and if they do happen to be the same person, and she wants to maintain two separate identities, I don't see a problem with that if we can get sources for Radford. Like I said above, my gut told me being published by a couple major houses should confer at least minor notability, but as it stands, WP:AUTHOR prevails, so we need more sources. "What do they want?"...well, see WP:OTHERSTUFF about why there are tens of thousands of schlocky articles while others get Afd'd. Anyone with the good/mis- fortune to have a connection with Oregon is going to have their article pop up on on WikiProject Oregon's watchlist. That means it's more likely something will end up at Afd, but it also means there is a better chance for it to be improved. I'll take back my merge proposal, but I'm leaning toward weak delete at this point. At worst, give her a few more years. P.S. I just reverted an anon edit that pretty much rendered the article incomprehensible. I'm not making any accusations here but those who know Ms. Radford, be sure to tell her that it's probably not a good idea to edit her own article, for WP:COI reasons. Contributions and discussion on the article's talk page would be most welcome. Hopefully she can set up her own account. I note also that the article seems to have been created by someone running a convention at which Ms. Radford will appear. Slightly less COI, but we aren't here to help provide PR for such things. That said, I'm hoping we can bring this up to standard, it seems like such a borderline case of NN. P.P.S. There are at least a couple notable people connected with Willamette Writers. Katr67 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Irene Radford pen name was chosen because there already was a Phyllis Karr; they are two separate people. --健次(derumi)^talk 04:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - but boy howdy, does this mess need cleanup! (Full disclosure: I read a lot of SF & fantasy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Moderately successful novelist, none of her books held in more than 550 US libraries, which is only fair for this sort of fiction. Not many reviews: LJ gave one -- and apparently only one-- of them a brief review. I consider that award from Willamette Writers as very minor & the local newspaper reviews from oregon as similarly not indicative of notability. That some people in the region are notable writers doesn't mean that all of them are. The article shows signs of PR writing to the extent that really concerns me, especially in view of the energetic try here to do OR by email. If people are going to put PR into Wikipedia, they can at least prepare it properly in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that Radford is notable because a couple other Willamette Writers members are notable, I was trying to imply that Willamette Writers might be notable by virtue of having a couple notable members, thus an award from them might confer notability. Just something to follow up on if anybody cares to. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Willamette Writers lifetime achievement award that would need to be notable in order for it to have relevance to Irene Radford's notability. It's unrelated to if Willamette Writers is notable which is unrelated to if its members are notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've been unclear. It's really not necessary to talk me out of suggesting that these things might be notable. We have so little to go on that I'm just grasping at straws, not making any sort of definite notability argument. I'm merely suggesting a possible line of investigation if anyone wants to do some checking. Katr67 (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's a successful author but by normal WP standards she's not notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DGG. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3). Blatant hoax. All the URLs leading to "verifiable sources" are 404 errors, and absolutely zilch on a basic search. MuZemike 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Takhir Khudayarov

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

Well-written but clear hoax- thanks to a vandal, it was clear that none of the references are valid, nor did gnews turn up anything.

Taking to AFD to confirm, as it's outside of my subject area. tedder (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax Spiderone 07:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references works. Offliner (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G3. Bogus references = intentional hoax. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:53, 23 September 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) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Braunlich

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

Article just about claims some notability so not nominating for speedy deletion. However: there are no refs to support any of this, that the subject "helped" with a company's most successful products does not imply significant involvement, and there is no indication that either the company or products are notable. Delete as non-notable. I42 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no establishment of notability. Personally, I think a speedy is in order, but I'll go with the flow. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete All I can find is this and this. Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, article was blank, only redirects and disambigs in history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACSA Nothing Links here will SPEEDY

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

Speedy Delete as A3. Moved as part of move of Acsa and Acas, Hungary; putting DAB at ACSA since it's pretty much all abbreviations (but nothing currently links there either) then Acsa as the Hungarian village. SimonTrew (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History merge needed? It looks like moving this page to this title was not the best way to go, particularly if the page is to be deleted. The revision history of the disambiguation page ACSA is here at ACSA Nothing Links here will SPEEDY, and deleting this page would delete that history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this has never been more than a disambiguation page, there may not be any substantial contributions or historical contributions that require preserving. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When it was at ACAS there was no history beyond its creation on 24 March 2008 (so obviously I did preserve the history, but it is trivial and uninterestin. Theew were only two links to it (apart from a few logs etc) when it was at ACAS, which I fixed as it was obvious what they should disambiguate to, so it could have just gone Speedy as an orphan. SimonTrew (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutra I

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

Dubious existence. This article has been tagged as a hoax since August 14, 2009. I have been unable to find anything to confirm this prince's existence; however, this may be because this prince lived in the tenth century. A Google Books search returns false positives. I cannot verify the prince's existence. The two external links/references in the article are not reliable sources, so they cannot be used.

If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddayaknow. I found two and added them to the article. Please have a look, Cunard, and tell me if they are false posivites. Note: I looked for Mar-Zutra, and that's probably where the article should be moved to in place of the redirect that's currently there. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The sources found by Drmies prove that this prince does indeed exist. Nice rescue! I'm certain that these aren't false positives because both the sources and the article discuss a prince that existed in the sixth century.
By the way, I have also nominated Hazub for deletion as a hoax. Both Sutra I and Hazub were created by Gonçalo-Manuel (talk · contribs) and tagged as hoaxes by Edward321 (talk · contribs). I have searched for alternative titles for Hazub (Khazuv and Chatzuv) as you did at Sutra I, but have been unable to find anything substantial. Can you find sources for Hazub, too? Cunard (talk) 21:55, 23 September 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) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manipal bug

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

This bug appears to exist; see this article from The Manipal Journal (which appears to be an unreliable source). It has been tagged as a hoax since September 20, 2009 by Martin H. (talk · contribs). Since there is some valid disagreement over whether or not this should be included in the encyclopedia, i.e. Wikipedia:Verifiability concerns, I have nominated this article for deletion.

It was mentioned on the talk page that there could be sources in a language native to Manipal, India, so I will withdraw this AfD if sources are found. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the discussion on the talk page:

Discussion

Hoax

No references except one blog, no scientific description. The image of swellings, the only image directly related to this insect, was not related (http://www.flickr.com/photos/docfiles/95240312/, besides it was a copyright violation). With the precautions described in the article it must be a serious problem in that region and it is not likely that there is no other reference or scientific description. --Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manipal Journal is not a blog. It is an English language news website affiliated with the local college. People in Karnataka speak Kannada, not English. The refs on this bug will probably not be in English, for the most part. Maybe you did not read the comments on the article--the bug clearly is a problem in Manipal, but there is no reason to assume that people outside Manipal are aware of it. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...and then redirect, as I previously did with this edit. The M. Journal does not appear to be an RS, and there is no independent coverage, so I think a redirect is the most appropriate. Current content is non-encyclopaedic and lacks independent sources for verification. Chzz ► 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "Manipal bug" is apparently only used in Manipal, a city in the Karnataka region of India. However, I am convinced that this is not a hoax. The phenomenon is undoubtedly real, see this review -- Manipal is not mentioned but the author is from Karnataka. I have also found the term "Manipal bug" in blog posting that don't seem likely to be faked. Since the term is only locally used, I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should have a Wikipedia article, but I do have a strong opinion that this is not just a hoax. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Apparently yes there is something that bites or produces blisters by contact. But this is largely WP:ONESOURCE. The source attributes the discovery to Kasturba Medical College but the college doesn't maintain a website which could verify it. A search on the Times of India website (which has an edition from the neighbouring Mangalore city) does not throw any results. May not be a hoax but verifiability is paramount. --Deepak D'Souza 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userify or Delete. All we have is a single, borderline reliable, news article on this insect/phenomenon. The Manipal Journal website is perhaps reliable for local news, but is not a suitable source for entomology. However since this is not an on-wiki hoax and there is a possibility that other sources may be found or written on the subject, it may be best to userify it and wait to see if the claimed research at Kasturba Medical College is published. I'll ask User:Shashaanktulsyan if he is interested. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this isn't a hoax, we can hardly infer from a scientifically looking article that doesn't use this name that this thing could possibly exists even if under a name used only in one town in India. Looie produced some fancy footwork, but it's too fancy and produces too little result for inclusion in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looie496 has linked to a source that even gives the name of the insect causing the dermatitis: Paederus melampus. The source article was published in the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Jan Feb 2007, by Gurcharan Singh and Syed Yousuf Ali of the Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College in Karnataka; it should be added to the wikipedia article as a ref.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cases of blisters caused by Manipal bug are very famous in Manipal. There have been cases where victim's face has been badly spoiled(because of consecutive encounters) (no citation available). No one is sure how the bug looks. This article was created to provide whatever information is available on this bug. But this article wasn't given much thought (by me) while creation. I left it so in hope that it would be improved by some person (maybe from Manipal) as he stumbles on this topic. According to me, since this article doesn't meet the standards it should be marked so, but shouldn't be deleted as it provides a few starting points for knowing more about Manipal Bug and may be improved as more information is available. (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it has been established that Manipal bug is no hoax, so I will remove the hoax tag.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources to verify that this exists. The Indian Journal of Dermatology article linked above is about the Paederus genus, but contains no mention of the phrase 'Manipal bug' (or any mention of Manipal), so doesn't seem relevant here. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article Paederus dermatitis and there is nothing in this one worth using, and no reason for a redirect, as there isnt any real evidence it's specific to Manipal. That article needs editing, as the sources cited do not specify Manipal--the unnverified material here seems to have been added there also. Am I really the first person in this discussion to have found that Wikipedia article? DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is hinched on a single source. Would have !voted keep if one more independent reference is available. Salih (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paederus dermatitis, where various blister beetles are discussed, including the Manipal bug (Paederus dermatitis is a new article, created on 9/25, so most of the !voters here couldn't have seen it - reason for extending the discussion perhaps?). Priyanath ^talk 17:37, 30 September 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. Arguments for delete are far stronger than the multiple copied comments from drive-by IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Rashid

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)

The first person to perform single port access surgery in Pakistan. The article has already been deleted here, here and here. Strong on peacock terms but devoid of relevant external links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the Wiki: In defence of maintaining the page, please note:

wiki's of surgeons with similar status exist. Example: Lall_Sawh
already deleted pages could not possibly have the same content, except to the extend that they relied on the same news items. Therefore, existing deletes are irrelevant with respect to the content of the current wiki.
wiki's of first-timers abound in WP. Just Google "first time in the history of" site:wikipedia.org or similar patterns.
This is important information for 180 million Pakistanis.

Anasim (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, please note that lack of references can not be an argument for deletion of the wiki. It may be used as an argument for improving the wiki. But existence of wiki is a function of the degree to which wiki's subject matter is encyclopedic in nature, among other criteria. Anasim (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate User:Anasim's commentary, as well as Dr. Rashid's achievement in the scarless surgery and whatnot, but I still have to go with a Delete on this one. The issue I see is a minor achievement in medicine - no scar for a single point of access (SPA) surgery, and is the first to perform an SPA surgery - scarless or not - in Pakistan. He is not, however, the first person to perform a SPA surgery. It's the latter that warrants an article in Wikipedia. Given this, though, Dr. Rashid should, in my opinion, get a mention in the article about Single port access surgery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - revised my !vote slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RHaworth, the article is now less strong on peacock terms (though it is still fluffy enough), but it hasn't improved the notability of the subject, whose claim to fame is too tenuous for inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable enough for Pakistanis. 110.37.13.61 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable enough for Pakistanis. 128.242.109.226 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would those two IPs kindly provide the reliable sources necessary to verify those statements? Drmies (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The degree of online response from Pakistan in defence of this Wiki may also be considered strong, if not sufficient, evidence for WP:N. Given low literacy, WP not being available in Urdu, power failures, low bandwidth, online participation from Pakistan is likely to reflect a wider point-of-view, compared to online participation from say Britain. Anasim (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, that is the stretchiest argument I have ever seen. Would you propose that AfD become a voting process and that votes from areas to be determined by you count double, even if they are not accompanied by actual arguments? You may state that Pakistan has low literacy, but they have excellent newspapers, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to dwell too much on this issue, but in global contexts, idiosyncrasies of national cohorts are often exploited by statisticians to get more accurate numbers. Anasim (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep.notable enough for pakistanis. This is a very valuable information and historical event in pakistan references given in the original article are enough to established the fact.These information must include in wikipedia.(ireland)
Keep. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of medical professionals listed under "British Medical Doctors" category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_medical_doctors). If we argues that doing something in Britain does not count for anything unless it is special for the whole world, then I am sure most of these entries will also be marked for deletion
- Go ahead and propose some of them, and if, like this present article, they suffer from not passing WP:GNG, I'll be glad to vote "delete." However, the presence of even millions of articles on British doctors has no bearing on this article. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable enough for Pakistanis. 115.186.74.219 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable enough for Pakistanis. 72.244.49.226 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To remind people, this is not a vote, this is a consensus. Padding the AFD with the four keep !votes from anon IPs will not establish this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In case following information is useful for the contribs in reaching consensus, especially due to raising of IP address issue, I just resolved the PTR records, and report as follows:
  - 72.244.49.226 - ISP = covad
  - 59.103.208.76 - no PTR resolv; Reg=APNIC
  - 89.204.178.198 - ISP = no PTR resolv; Reg=RIPE (Amsterdam)
  - 128.242.109.226 - ISP = no PTR resolv; Reg=NTT USA
  - 115.186.74.219 - ISP = wordcall.net.pk
  - 110.37.13.61 - ISP = wateen.net
    Anasim (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is this, Anasim, as I am sure you know: the mere echoing of "keep" without providing any kind of argument is not going to convince many administrators. They could be a million different IPs, but if all they say is "keep, notable for Pakistanis"--well, that's just another version of "keep because I like it." Drmies (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of medical professionals listed under "British Medical Doctors" category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_medical_doctors). If we argues that doing something in Britain does not count for anything unless it is special for the whole world, then I am sure most of these entries will also be marked for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.49.226 (talk) — 72.244.49.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Hmmm...sounds familiar...still does not account for Wikipedia guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.After reading the article and above commentary I am in favor of keeping this article. Objection made is about its fluffiness, peacock term and lack of reference. The author of this article should improve this article by making appropriate edits to rectify the concerns. I do see some references though, including the newspaper articles confirming what is claimed in this article. I also agree this information is valuable especially for a country that is not much advanced in the field of medical; this article would surely give good information and sense of achievement to people of this country. I do see many 'Keeps' without enough reasoning -which is not good- but on the other hand I also see almost equal number of attempts complaining about lots of 'keeps' without reasoning. I see the discussion is going the wrong way, instead of trying to provide reason of keeping or deleting, emphasis is on "sorry your vote didn't count".99.179.20.53 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Notable enough for Pakistanis" is ridiculous. enWikipedia covers the world, and at the same standard. We don't insult Pakistanis by accepting a special lower level of notability for the people there. There are undoubtedly many notable Pakistani physicians. For example, the heads of departments at the major medical schools (see Category:Schools of medicine in Pakistan) there are much more likely to be notable than the Assistant Professors, like the subject of this article. The successive Directors of their National Institute of Health, of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, the Presidents of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, all will probably be notable. We could & should have dozens of verifiable bio articles of clear notability--those interested in the topic, rather than in PR for the individual, have a wide scope. And there is no more reason to add him to the article on Single port access surgery than the people who did it first in each separate country in the world. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 30 September 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) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hazub

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

Dubious existence. This article has been tagged as a hoax since August 14, 2009. I have been unable to find anything to confirm this prince's existence; however, this may be because this prince lived in the tenth century. A Google Books search returns one result, but it's a "[n]o preview available" result, so this cannot be used to verify the prince's existence. The two external links/references in the article are not reliable sources, so they cannot be used.

If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The onus is on the article to establish its accuracy; it hasn't (at this stage) done so. As above, I'll change to "keep" if sources can be found. (I wouldn't know where to start researching something like this.) It probably doesn't help that it's written in a semi-liturgical style. A cleanup to lay English might be useful. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verification of existence below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but it would be an idea to confrim this with a copy of Seder Olam Zutta. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if we do no longer doubt the subject's existence, is he therefore automatically notable? (And I've cleaned up the article some.) Chesdovi, do you have an argument to offer for your keep-vote? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can prove his existence, this article should be kept. Princes are automatically notable. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can withdraw your AfD on the basis of this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia--but I'm going to whittle the article to one sentence. I guess there might be a way to verify the genealogy, indirectly, but all the rest came from some angelfire website, now dead, put in there by the original writer, now blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD withdrawn It has been confirmed that Hazub exists. By the way, old versions of the Angelfire website can be accessed via Archive.org; see here. I don't know if that will help verify the genealogy because the website doesn't really discuss Hazub in relation with his family members. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the proffered sources are enough to keep the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding tree

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

This article has been tagged as a hoax since September 15, 2009. Although I disagree that it's a hoax, the article looks like it is composed primarily of original research. If I am wrong (this looks like it could be a list of some sort), I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - The article's not a hoax - unless I'm deeply misled trees can explode during certain types of sudden freeze, or from other unexpected natural events - but I'm just not convinced it merits an article. The fact that trees sometimes explode can be well covered in the articles on trees, lightning, weather, et cetera. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting I've seen the changes made to the article up to 30 Sep 09 and I still feel that it could be covered under freezing, tree, or sap - there's nothing special about this topic that makes it deserve its own article. Sap expands when freezing, just like any other liquid, and may burst its container; we don't need articles on burst pipes, exploding bottles in freezer or pavement displacement, and we don't need this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic that people might want to learn more about, although not one of WP's most high level articles but no real problems with it. Borock (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about an April fools' Joke that is not notable mostly. Article a hoax. If the part of the article "Some trees explode by lightning" can be expanded to be encyclopedic. Keep otherwise Delete. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 12:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just about anything can explode if hit by lightning. This is a blatant WP:OR violation and needs to be deleted lest similar non-encylopedic articles should appear such as Exploding Toyota Camry (with full tank of gas), Exploding above ground metal septic tank or Exploding can of diced tomatoes. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or even, heaven forbid, Exploding whales.... Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my delete !vote above: the article contains the following sentence "...eucalyptus trees are also known to explode during bush fires..." and is followed by two references, namely The Eucalyptus of California and Eucalytus Roulette (con't). Eucalyptus#Fire contains all the pertinent and related info regarding Eucalyptus fires due to their high oil content and the two references speak of the Eucalyptus phenomenon only. No other trees are mentioned which confirms my belief that this article suffers from an OR violation that mixes fact about exploding Eucalyptus trees with non-notable April fools jokes. Any additional information about Eucalyptus trees exploding in a fire should be added the the main Eucalyptus article, free from syrup-caused maple tree explosion myths. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things can explode when struck by lightning, I don't see what makes trees so special. This subject may merit a short mention in the lightning article but is not a significant subject itself in my opinion. Chillum 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is outranked by actual sources. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It only exists because of some editors' obsession with Template:Exploding organisms. This is a bunch of improper synthesis in order to have another article to put into that template. Fences&Windows 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G has made a valiant effort, but it's still improper synthesis. It could make an amusing blog entry. Fences&Windows 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fences and windows. This is just a silly meme. Hesperian 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never notable - exploding aspects are not notable variants of non-exploded entities. If anything, the information can be covered in the specific organisms referred to. Chances are, there is no need for it. This information is more for a book on trivia than an actual encyclopedia. I'm surprised there isn't an exploding watermelons article. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly not a hoax, as I've seen trees explode when struck by lightning, but not notable at all. Things explode sometimes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and pure WP:SYN. Much of this category shouldn't exist. They were mostly written before we had well-developed policies against such original research. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per CHL. Horologium (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability can seem a bit marginal, but there's sources, lots of popular culture coverage and it is nice to see the subject covered this way. There is room for improvement in my opinion. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in multiple reliable sources as one of the hazzard of forest fires, also a property of some plants during seeding. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, if peculiar. The ability to refer readers of other articles to a place where information about trees exploding generally is compiled is one of the advantages of a paperless encyclopedia. Original research can be edited out easily enough with deletion.--otherl left 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge with lightning How can an article be a hoax with this many references? I haven't checked the references myself, have those editors who are calling this a hoax done so? This is a notable, albeit odd article. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you referring to? – iridescent 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps he is referring to this? Chillum 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Pretty much anything will explode if it's heated rapidly. The "exploding things" pages were an unfunny in-joke five years ago, and they're an unfunny in-joke now. Oh, and Ikip, you might want to actually read discussions before you wade into them, as there's not a single person here calling it a hoax. – iridescent 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About reading discussions, well, I think that Ikip talks of the nom paragraph, which says that the article has been tagged as a hoax :)--Cyclopia (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- It seems highly unlikely that "unfunny Wikipedia in-jokes" have travelled back in time to occur in encyclopaedias of the 19th century, and reports by wilderness explorers and tree growers before, then, and since. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was asked to revisit this discussion; despite the expansion, I still can't see any reason to keep this article. It still reads like someone wanted to have an article titled "Exploding tree", and cherry-picked vaguely related material to try to fit; describing wood splintering due to freezing sap as "exploding" is stretching the meaning of the word well past breaking point. "Making a bang" doesn't equate to "explosion"; a rapid increase in volume – the defining characteristic of an explosion as opposed to simple breakage – isn't present. Any rigid object subjected to gradually increasing stress will eventually splinter in this same way; it's no more an explosion than the bottom of an over-filled plastic bag ripping open. – iride scent 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis. The individual sentences in the article could be appropriate in articles about lightning, forest fires, the sandbox tree, and April Fools' Day. That doesn't mean they should be joined together in one article. If any editor can produce a single reliable source that discusses "exploding trees" in general as a subject, then let them bring it forward now. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiddo, Henry Ward Beecher and John Claudius Loudon have discussed this subject, as have many others besides. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left this for a while, wondering whether anyone else would find the sources that I turned up. They didn't. So I've added them. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, these sources do not discuss a general topic of exploding trees. The material from Loudon is about the effects of freezing weather, including the effect of cracking and splitting trees. He doesn't call them explosions, he just says they can sound like "the explosion of fire-arms". The Beecher reference isn't about trees at all, but about wooden boxes. The other two are anecdotes about trees during freezes. The article already had sources about specific types of tree "explosions". What it lacks is any source that considers these different types of events to be a generalized phenomenon of "exploding trees". Absent that, it seems more appropriate for these unrelated phenomena to be discussed in the distinct articles about their causes. Basically, you just found material for use in Frost#Effect on plants. Good stuff, but not a justification for keeping this particular article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You haven't read the Beecher reference. Know how I can tell? Because you assert that it isn't about trees at all. Kiddo, go and read it, then you'll have a better idea of what it's about and a sounder basis to make assertions like the above. Hint: It not only mentions trees, but it also cites Loudon.
    You clearly aren't actually reading the sources presented, so your assertions here as to what they contain can at best be taken with a large pinch of salt. Heck, you clearly haven't even looked beyond the two sources mentioned above, let alone at the other twenty mentioned in the article. Indeed, it's fairly evident that you haven't even read the article and even the titles of the sources. Guess how I can, similarly, know that straightaway from what you write. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the Beecher reference is found here. Here's how it reads, in part:

“

We are in doubt whether the winter stored sap exists in a state to be affected by the expansion of the freezing fluids of the tree. If the expansion of congelation did produce the effect it should have been more general, for there are fluids in every part of the trunk–all congeal or expand–and the bursting of the trunk in one place would not relieve the contiguous portions. We should expect if this were the cause that the tree would explode rather than split. Capt. Bach, when wintering near Great Slave Lake, about 63° north latitude, experienced a cold of 70° below zero. Nor could any fire raise it in the house more than 12° above zero. Mathematical instrument cases, and boxes of seasoned fir, split in pieces by the cold. Could it have been the sap in seasoned fir wood which split them by its expansion in congealing?

”

It seems like this argues against the phenomenon. Unless there is another reference elsewhere in the book - and Google claims this is the only hit on the words "explode" and "exploding" - I am not sure why this OR the fact that it quotes Loudon makes it somehow a super-source that justifies the article's existence. Frank | talk 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have worded my first sentence as "the material added to the article does not ..." instead of "the sources do not..." My apologies for that poor choice of wording on my part, particularly if that led Uncle G to focus on lecturing me about reading sources rather than addressing the concern I raised. My original concern was that the article is mixing different types of "explosion" phenomena with various causes (freezing, forest fire, lightning, and reproductive process) that are not mixed in the source material as a single subject of "exploding trees". From the cited sources that I have reviewed (not all, but some), only one discusses more than one of these phenomena. That is a Q&A column that mentions two of the four phenomena (freezing and lightning). That piece post-dates the Wikipedia article, producing the possibility of circularity. (The author of the column has linked to WP on a number of occasions, so we know she uses us as a research source.) Since this is the only source cited in relation to more than one of the four types of "explosions", it seems likely that it is the only one that mentions more than one. Since it is a shaky source and only mentions two of the four phenomena, the problem of synthesis still exists: is there a reliable source that generalizes on the subject of exploding trees in a way that incorporates the different phenomena discussed in the article? I still see no answer to that question. --RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think synthesis is a reason for deletion, so much as it's a reason for editing. Synthesis (it's all improper in Wikipedia) is the combination of sources to create a new idea, so just rewrite so that the article only says what the sources say it ought to say. We can talk more easily about notability at that point, I should think. I would take a stab at it but the sources are plentiful and deep, and I've had plentiful hours since my last deep sleep, so I think I'd best avoid the attempt today.--otherlleft 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are neither plentiful nor deep, so perhaps you really do need that next "deep sleep". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article makes no more sense than would an article on exploding cold water pipes. Trees are not unique in being split by the expansion of water, and to call that an "explosion" stretches credibility to breaking point. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not rename, then, to something like "Trees struck by lightening"? Cool Hand Luke 19:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Water pipes effected by frozen water? Chillum 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it would be Water pipes affected by frozen water, not effected, but point taken. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it should be deleted because sources do not treat it as a topic. If there were treatises about the effects of water on frozen pipes as an identifiably separate topic than pipes and freezing, there should be an article on that too. Malleus has only given a reason to rename. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article currently addresses more than just trees struck by lightning. Of the four types of phenomena addressed in the article, largest amount of material is now about freezing. So "Effect of freezing on trees" would be more appropriate for a rename. And of course the material on other phenomena would need to be removed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I intended it to be an argument for sanity, not renaming a piece of nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I agree with you; this is not a sensible or well-sourced topic. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (regardless of disputes about proper page naming). The text is clear, comprehensive to a degree which is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and amply supported by citations. — Athaenara ✉ 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you taken the trouble to read any of those citations? How many of them discuss trees exploding, as opposed to occasionally making a noise that sounds like a explosion? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was posting, it occurred to me to wonder whether I should add, please, don't badger the keeps. I guess I should have. — Athaenara ✉ 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you think it would have made any difference? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the outcome of the AFD, no. Contesting every view other than your own, however, generates an unnecessarily adversarial atmosphere. It's impolite. I did think mentioning it might have the paradoxical effect / unintended consequence of inviting more badgering. Your reply to my comment supports that. — Athaenara ✉ 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heavily footnoted, no longer primarily OR as claimed by nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In a sense you're right. There's very little research at all into this faux phenomenon. in fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since my !vote, the article has been re-written but I still can't agree that it's not a WP:SYNTH violation. No documents published in RS exist on the phenomenon of "exploding trees"; the conclusion that such a thing may exist is only reached by forcing together excerpts from articles that speak about maple syrup, cold temperatures and reports on damage by lightning. I commend Uncle G for trying to rescue the article but, if I'm to be completely honest, I don't feel more informed about "exploding trees" than I did before ever stumbling across this piece of cruft in the first place. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I enjoyed reading it but it looked as original research to me. Dy yol (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say the article on Exploding tree is SYN because what it contains is information about exploding trees does not make any sense to me. That's exactly what it ought to contain. In addition, it properly has content about the concept in general, and its supposed nature as a hoax, which it isnt. All well sourced, as expected from Uncle G when he takes an article in hand to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYNTH states to "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". My argument is that the article in question does exactly this. If you disagree that the article does not violate the above definition, that's completely understandable because I don't expect everyone to agree but please don't ridicule my opinion by misrepresenting my statement in such a sarcastic way; nowhere did I say "Exploding tree is SYN because what it contains is information about exploding trees". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, but (1)I'd like to see what conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sourced is presented in the article (2)If there is indeed OR in the article, we can remove it without deleting the article, unless the concept itself of the article is OR -which doesn't seem. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Above. Awesome work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was initially against keeping it, but the depth to which editors have expanded the article with reliable and verifiable citations has swayed me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has improved greatly since the nomination, and it appears to be well-researched and footnoted. Some of the material isn't really about explosions but things which might seem a bit like explosions, but I'm OK with that. The topic seems marginal (especially insofar as it is knitting together a bunch of mostly unconnected facts), but there is probably more to find. The section on exploding trees in fiction is currently just an uninspiring list, but see for example [56] a scholarly discussion which mentions (in passing) an exploding tree in Flannery O'Conner's work as a metaphor and compares it to the burning bush of Moses. [57] discusses an exploding tree in Lord of the Flies. Kingdon (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer number of sources persuaded me to vote Keep. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:32, 1 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 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

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

Non-notable fight of no historical consequence YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contrary to the title, it was one fight. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a daft and poorly sourced content fork of 2009_attacks_on_Indian_students_in_Australia which is the appropriate article for Australian racial violence towards Indians in Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like not so much a content fork as just an extension which has been put into its own article for no apparent reason. Merge and redirect to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia, it probably justifies a single paragraph in the "Attacks" section of that article. --Stormie (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says that the victims are students YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article in question does state that two of the three victims were students; however, reading all the references provided, this assertion is completely unsupported, no mention is made in any of the news reports of them being students. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Stormie (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unsalvageably biased. Hesperian 05:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bearing in mind WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. It may be that these events will prove to be notable and deserve encyclopaedic coverage, but at this stage that's not established; the cited sources appear to be the result of a slow day in the Indian news. Possibly the article creator could re-create the article at a later date with the benefit of perspective, and establish why this event will continue to be notable in Setember 2010 and beyond? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and as an irremediable POV pushing article. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - POV pushing Aaroncrick (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single incident, biased, etc., per everyone else. (The creator's edit history exhibits some rather familiar ducklike behaviour....) Priyanath ^talk 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. The incident, by itself, is non-notable (or "news" at best), and is already covered in the larger article. We may need to redirect, rather than delete though since content from this article was merged into 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia]. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia - normally this would be non-notable as a single incident, but given that it may or may not be part of a larger pattern, it's worth at least keeping a redirect around and mentioning it in the larger article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Don't redirect, as it was previously redirected and re-opened as its own article (although redirect would be the next best option to delete). --Merbabu (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentioned (Merged) by me in 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if content from this article was merged to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia this article should not be deleted based on wikipedias copyright rules/requirements about preserving history. This article should not be kept as is (said well above) so the only option is redirect. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually blanking maybe an option, but a fairly useless option here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the redirect to stop what Merbabu is talking about. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternative - undo the merge and remove that from the history of the article. Then a redirect wouldn't be necessary. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and POV, besides the fact this was a lone incident, and not a series of attacks.--LAA Fan^sign _review 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, on similar grounds as Merbabu. Orderinchaos 03:25, 1 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jones, Jr.

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

The subject has no notability aside commiting a murder. Not to minimize the impact of a murder, but aside from that, the man was non-notable. There was nothing in this case that makes it pass WP:N/CA and I believe falls into the area of WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:ONEVENT Whitespider23 (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - "most recent person executed by the US" is a kind of notability. Also, I have to say if I came to Wikipedia researching capital punishment or crime in the US military I would be strongly assisted by this page. It does need a great deal more citation, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since notability isn't temporary, but being the "most recent" is, I'd say that's not really an indicator of notability. Please note, he was the most recent executed by the Federal government, not the most recent in the US. BTW, he wasn't charged with a crime by the military or tried by a military court, so he wouldn't necessarily be much help if you were researhing crime in the military.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ONEEVENT per nom. If being the "most recent person executed by the US federal government" is enough for notability, that would require deleting and changing the article if and when there is another execution of that type. At best, that's a line for List_of_most_recent_executions_by_jurisdiction#United_States and not much more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
query - was there an Ann Rule book, or at least an article, about this case? It sounds incredibly familiar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Summarizing current WP:N/CA guidelines on perpetrator articles: "Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true: They are notable for something beyond the crime itself; the victim is a renowned world figure; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual." This article subject clearly falls outside these parameters. Tan | 39 22:17, 29 September 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) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of San Jose, California

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

Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unsalvagable without legend.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for this gallery of maps. They might be useful in the context of specific articles, but not this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 24 September 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) 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Oakland, California

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

Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unsalvagable without legend.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for this gallery of maps. They might be useful in the context of specific articles, but not this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 24 September 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) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic maps of San Francisco

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

Single sourced gallery page. This page is a collection of images, all of which are from the US census bureau's American factfinder. None of these images have legends/keys to quantify the values of any of the geographic distributions being represented. This opens the page up to speculation and other original research based on the images. Without the data that corresponds with the images, they are unencyclopedic as well. Both the gallery page and these associated images should be deleted. Optigan13 (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unsalvagable without legend.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for this gallery of maps. They might be useful in the context of specific articles, but not this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 24 September 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) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muris Varajić

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

Non-notable person Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched for a RS, couldn't find anything that remotely qualifies. Fails notability. Whitespider23 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless secondary sources are found and added to the article. At the moment I can only conclude it's a vanity page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 24 September 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. JForget 13:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electra Avellan

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

I'm mainly nominating as per WP:NOTINHERITED. most coverage relates to the fact she is the niece of Robert Rodriguez [58]. I doubt she would have received this third party coverage if she wasn't a niece. so ignoring the fact that she is a niece of someone famous she fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Also nominating twin sister Elise Avellan. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both one role makes her a WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, her bio on es.wiki has recently been deleted Ohconfucius (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both - Numerous 3rd party – independent – verifiable – creditable sources, as shown here [59], for the young ladies, independent of their Uncle. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both - a single nameless role does not satisfy WP:ENT. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:09, 19 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 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both with option to recreate once greater notability is established. Featured extra work on a single studio film doesn't qualify. Couldn't find much information on future roles to verify size or importance. Whitespider23 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 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) 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

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

When I arrived, the article was filled with listcruft. All trivial instances that did little to provide insight to the reader. Additionally, most were uncited, cited to unreliable sources, or contained information that was not backed up by the sources.

I went ahead and pruned it to include only reliably sourced material, but it now appears that there isn't enough to warrant a separate article. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a merge discussion. I also don´t understand why you sent it here. How will you resolve the problem of IPs sending lots of popular content without source to main article and at same time keeping it as GA article? Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Good work Bdb484. It's a better page now. I think it still needs more info on why the remaining examples are noteworthy, encyclopaedic, and contribute to an understanding of parkour's impact on society - I've expanded Casino Royale and Crackdown as a (bare bones) example. Failing it miraculously expanding out to an excellent article, let's merge it back into Parkour, with an attached WP:POPCULTURE warning. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - Upon second examination, many of the pop culture references deleted by Bdb484 genuinely are worthwhile, notable and significant. They just need better sources. If anyone reading this is able to sift through the deleted stuff and reinstate it with better sources it'd be great. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Parkour is too bulky, that's appears to be reason this was broken out. --Milowent (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not seem to consider good alternatives to deletion such as merger into the main article. Our deletion and editing policies therefore indicate that the nomination is premature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is still the better way to keep parkour listed as GA. If you merge into main article, bear in the mind that there is a great chance to the article be delisted. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This notion that a fork is an appropriate method to maintain an article's internal Wikipedia rating makes me very uncomfortable. First, if true, that means that this article does not deserve to exist at all since it somehow offends the rating system. If one contends that this Parkour in popular culture article is appropriate for Wikipedia, then the material should be appropriate in the main article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine. Dream Focus 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of most "in popular culture" articles at AfD does not support your statement. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "discovery" of parkour by the media has had fairly significant effects on film-making (particularly stunt work), on videogame design (particularly control schemes and avatar movement), and in other areas. It's worth exploring in an article. It's just that it needs to be done well, with citation, and with entries only being added when they are capable of showing that the depiction of parkour in question had some real impact or notability, rather than merely having occurred. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for merging. Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge would also be a good outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 28 September 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) 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Smith (recording engineer)

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

Does not assert notability, unable to find any notability online RaseaC (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the lack of anything in the article to suggest notability, I have made extensive web searches, and have found nothing more than a few credits to him as engineer on records and similar brief mentions, and few even of those. No other Wikipedia article mentions him either. He really does not seem to be notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:53, 9 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 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly the number of users who have expressed an opinion here is very small, but among those who have commented there is consensus. Nobody at all has provided any indication whatsoever of notability, either in the article itself or here, and two users have searched and failed to find any such indication. In at least one case the searches for indications for notability have been quite extensive and prolonged. Conclusion: he is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 21 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 03:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These things shouldn't keep being relisted. If they don't have sources to show notability and nobody pipes up in a week to fix it, then we can get rid of it - without prejudice to recreation in the future. Miami33139 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every person with a job. No evidence has been presented that the article satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, really, let's stop arsing around and delete it already. RaseaC (talk) 14:28, 23 September 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 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Anthony Walker

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

This is an article about a nonnotable composer who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as he hasn't recieved a signifciant amount of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. He has not significantly impacted his industry nor has he been recognized by it through awards. Them From Space 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news shows nothing on him. The fact that he pulled all his works in 1985 to re-release them in I guess 2007 isn't particularly relevant, although it seems given his Amazon sales, it's not of much interest (and the quote being from All Music Guide). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability was not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Heller

AfDs for this article:

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

Heller's day in the sun is over. No reason to keep page now that he didn't get elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Recommend delete or redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{-- Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{-- Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election per nom. Fails to establish notability by himself. 04:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as per nom, and in accordance with the discussion on the article's talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article, there was a contest for the NDP line, in which Heller prevailed. That differentiates him from other candidates who were unsuccessful in the general election. Readers might want to know more about someone who secured a contested nomination. JamesMLane t c 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a nomination contest is only one aspect of being a candidate, and a subject's mere candidacy has itself been found to be insufficient to show notability. More often than not, candidates are chosen by riding associations by way of contested nomination processes (rather than by acclamation) - it's neither noteworthy nor unusual. Can you point to any past consensus on Wikipedia where a candidate's nomination contest has itself been found to be sufficient as the sole inidcator of notability? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election as discussed on the article's talk page. Any references are only passing mentions to the person in reference to his being a candidate for election. No independent notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the notability guideline, "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources.". In other words, she shouldn't be considered any less notable now as a former candidate than she was two years ago as a current candidate, and the article should only be merged, deleted or turned into a redirect on notability grounds if she was never notable enough to warrent an article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Agreed notability is not temporary, however Heller never had it in the first place. According to WP:BIO and past experience with electoral candidates, this person does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Atrian (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election, I agree with nomination's reasoning. PK T(alk) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. Daniel (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sydney dust storm

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

Too minor of an event.. (non-notable) A dust storm that took place over 15 hours or less BrianY (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This event will likely be forgotten just a few weeks from now. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notable dust storms are not forgotten, but recorded, see list at Dust storm. Bkdd (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable event. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{-- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing any long-term coverage here. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 04:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bit early to say that there is no long-term coverage, but that aside the Bureau of Meteorology has already said that is is an historic event in New South Wales[60] so significance is clearly there. Bidgee (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that it's WP:NOTNEWS. All over in a day, nothing to see here, move on ... WWGB (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This made the 4th story of the breakfast news in the UK. Merge content into either Sydney or Climate of Sydney, New South Wales. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The biggest dust storm in 70 years, possibly ever in Australia. Whaddya mean delete ??? It has spread beyond Sydney so redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm. Bkdd (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm as this affected more than Sydney and had international effects (see article). Compare February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall for a similar sudden unexpected event which had unusual effects in another region. --can dle •wicke 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm since this is an significant not just for the State capitals of Sydney and Brisbane but also South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, such events (Size and intensity) in September is rare let alone in the Summer and is also making the media world wide[61]. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ƒ(Δ)² 09:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. This is the biggest dust storm in the past 50 years. Reubot (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm. This is the biggest dust storm in the past 70 years. Extremepro (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect 1983 Melbourne dust storm has an article Leewe (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm. Significant, historical event. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect and WP:SNOW - no reason provided as to why this needs to be a separate article of the same event. --Merbabu (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2009 Australian dust storm. Significant event in australia. Am I the only one who is tired of americans calling everything non-american "non notable"? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:12, 23 September 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) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Daly Cocktail

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

Contested prod. WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not a database of invented drink recipes. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the editor who originally prodded, I agree that this article fails WP:MADEUP... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - doing a google search, it seems also that this drink has been around a lot longer than January 14, 2009... comments about the recipe on this website go back to October 11, 2008, and this recipe was posted on May 4, 2007... I am leaning towards the idea that this is some guy (notice creator's user name is listed as one of the creators of the drink) who just wanted his 15 minutes of Wikipedia fame... Still a Delete vote, but more along the lines of hoax/misinformation, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is not a catalog of drink recipes... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#Collection of mixed drinks. Basket of Puppies 04:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No such ___location on that page! —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last week it was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shelbash, this week my fake hangover lashes out and cries "delete" at the John Daly Cocktail. --Milowent (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not Mr. Boston. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I think the drink's frozen - it must be snowing outside. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources per WP:RS, and clearly seems to be created for the self-glorification of the page creator User:phildade, who is referenced in the text Transmissionelement (talk) 17:53, 29 September 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) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Smart

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

Delete - only notable for having disappeared, failed WP:BIO1E. Otto4711 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was one event, but there's been 13 years of coverage.[62] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which implicates WP:NOT#NEWS. Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly about stuff that doesn't receive ongoing national coverage. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:News articles" This is still covered to this day, which makes NOTNEWS not apply, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename: Disappearance of Kristin Smart. As it stands, it seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT, but national attention and legislation that took place as a result, seem to establish lasting notability for the event (not the person) Whitespider23 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Per Whitespider23. The disappearance resulted in legislation, bringing this case to greater notability than the average disappearance or murder. Edison (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing coverage over more than a decade in addition to passage of legislation named for her all establish notability. BLP1E has no relevance here, as with others whose coverage in reliable and verifiable sources continues beyond an initial event. It's well past time that BLP1E is rewritten to reflect actual consensus at AfD and thereby eliminate needless nominations. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 23 September 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. Considering WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are far stronger than those in favor of retaining the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of timed artistic contests

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

Unnotable list of timed "artistic" contests that is a misnominer - may items listed do not rate artistic value, only require output; further, most of the list are unnotable knock offs of NaNoWriMo that really do not need their own articles, even after the redlink ones were cleared out. The rest, appear to be various copies of each other as well, such as the three 48 hour film challenges. Prod removed with note of "deprod; I think this at least deserves an afd" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (without the redlinks). Collectarian, not that I want to get into a debate about the nature of art, but your comment about the word 'artistic' in the title seems a little niggling. Art produced quickly is still art; the emphasis may be on output, but it's on creative output. But can you suggest a better title? Or is your argument that the sourced articles currently included on the list do not merit being grouped together under any title? And if you feel that any of the list items do not deserve their own articles, surely the solution would be to AFD them, not the list? -- Vary | (Talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art does not necessarily indicate artistic. I'm well aware that art produced is still art, I paint and write myself. However, the purposes of most of the contests listed are not contests about artistic endeavors but simply throwing out something within a time frame that is a book/song/etc by any definition. I do not feel that the list topic itself is notable and I do not feel it falls within WP:SAL. Whether any individual entries are notable is another issue and another discussion. The list is too narrow, too subjectively named, and generally not notable. There are not that many timed contests and, technically, any contest could be considered timed as they all have time limits (though obviously, the use of timed here is having a set start/finish). And are any of them really contests when many have no prizes or other reward beyond "okay you did it" and there are no actual declared winners. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with your assessment of the word artistic; if it's art, it's artistic. Saying something is 'artistic' doesn't necessarily say anything about the work's quality. There are currently fifteen items in the list which all fit its scope perfectly well and have a clear and obvious link, so I don't see how the list can be described as too narrow. Most of your concerns seem to be more related to the list's naming than it's existence; would substituting 'event' or similar for 'contest', or 'creative' for 'artistic' be helpful? -- Vary | (Talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't really agree with the nom's take on art, but the individual entries don't have anything to do with each other. Unless the relationship between the entries has encyclopedic significance I don't see how an article can be built out of the connection. This would be appropriate for a category but not a list. Them From Space 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the nom is talking about art as much as they are talking about these contests. I personally think that if time is the constraint then there is no question of something being artistic, but that's neither here nor there. This list, as Themfromspace says correctly, in my opinion, is better adapted as a category since there is a distinct lack of cohesion here. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as an article on the topic of timed artistic contests, if good sources can be found. It's clear to me this is a genuine thing, not just a random grouping of unrelated events.Borock (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can kind of understand the motivation for creating the list, but in practice these things just don't have much to do with each other. Propaniac (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this one; all of the items on the list are events or competitions where participants are encouraged to produce an unusually high amount of creative work in an unusually short period of time. That's the scope of the list. What more do they need to have in common? -- Vary | (Talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within this scope, many of the events are very different from each other and I don't see the value of collecting them under one canopy like this. For example, I don't think a user interested in National Novel Writing Month is also likely to be interested in the 48 Hour Film Project, because it's a completely different sort of challenge, not just in terms of the medium but in terms of the whole task. Simply defining a scope is not sufficient justification for the value of a list of topics within that scope. Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the title might not be the best, but I think at least some of these competitions have a lot in common. Indeed, they are based on each other to a large extent--the Comic writing one led to the 24 Hour Plays which led to the 48 Hour Film Project which led to 48HOURS, etc. Admittedly, I'm biased--I created the list out of the "List of timed video contests" or somesuch when people kept adding other timed artistic contests to that page. I thought that was the best solution at the time. Definitely the version of the article with the NaNoWriMo's all over it seemed like a bad idea, and it's not clear to me where there is a full list of these events. -- Shadowfax37 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless we come up with something better. If we're going to do it as categories, then maybe multiple categories would be better (one for each artform). TimNelson (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here specifically looking for information on the exact same topic and was glad to see it kept here. Bugtank (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 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 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Kyte

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would be notable if he was a mass murderer but 2 people is relatively local and happens frequently. I do not see this person meeting WP:N hence deletion. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:41, 16 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) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the crime made published resources, this is more of an archival news item then encyclopedic historical resource. Not to underplay the damage this individual did at all, but this doesn't warrant an article in an encyclopedia.

Weak Delete I'm a big proponent of "Notability is not temporary." This is one of the major ideas in the notability policy. However, I will agree that the article only cites one source, which I believe is never enough, especially in a BLP article. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serial killers are quite uncommon, and not unreasonably are of considerable public interest and consequent news coverage I note this escapes BLP1E, as the murders were separate. There ought to be more sources available on this one, though. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Killing two people does not seem to achieve encyclopedic notability, without producing secondary coverage (books, plays, movies) or societal effects, or legislation. Edison (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 murders a few months apart is close enough to a single event that I feel WP:BLP1E is relevant in this case. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 29 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan Malakian

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

I hate to do this, but Vartan himself, is not very notable and being the father of someone who is doesn't qualify. No sources anywhere in Google and I could only find his personal website, facebook and SOADFANS article. SKATER ^Speak. 20:39, 16 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) 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Agreed that being the father of a high profile individual doesn't qualify you as being notable, the article indicates he created several high distribution art pieces in the form of album art covers, and the art work for interments. There are however no citations for these creations, or independent credit cited for these works. Without good citation, the only verifiable claim to fame is his son. Aramova (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being related to someone famous doesn't make you notable. Even if RS can be found for the album covers, it still seems to be pushing the envelope when it comes to wiki notability. Whitespider23 (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. The article does not make an adequate case that he satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:45, 23 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yashwant Sena

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

I've verified that this organisation does exist,[63] but this article is almost the only mention I can find on Google outside Wikipedia mirrors, other than this blog post:[64]. There just isn't the coverage we need to write an encyclopedia artice. Someone might be able to work wonders with a non-English search, but I doubt it. Fences&Windows 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD rationale when all I could find was the above link in Business Standard which is more an amusing trivial mention. Nothing beyond trivial mentions in Hindi/Marathi sources either. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:40, 16 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) 00:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Trivial mentions do not evidence notability and make writing a neutral and sourced article impossible. Them From Space 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per qualified nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:40, 23 September 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 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids - the OAR

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

Nothing indicates why this specific line of Zoids needs a separate article. Notability is not established, and the content is already covered within the main article. TTN (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sounds like a reason to redirect to the main article as none exists to redlink... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:33, 17 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) 00:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge There is nothing to indicate exceptional notability of this line of products to warrant it's own article. The original Zoids article could benefit from having some of the additional information within this rogue article, however I must vote to delete. Aramova (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V; no reliable sources even say this was the name of this line of toys. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 23 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard Lane's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rickard Lane's

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

fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:NOT with regard to advertising. AP1787 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 15 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, 16 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) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a family-preserved mom-and-pop style store which isn't particularly notable for any reason. Hasn't been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 01:39, 23 September 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) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleader Days

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

Not notable series. It has not even been produced yet. Dr.K. logos 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like its sister series Style 101: Teen Edition (which has already been speedied), this appears to be a production effort by a new company, but from the article (and the related IMDB entry) it is not clear that the production is slated for a television run, or will exist solely as a web series. No prejudice about recreating the article if the series takes off. (Note: the producer (Scott Hamilton) is not the Scott Hamilton of figure skating fame. Don't be fooled by the erroneous information and videos on the IMDB page.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the detailed analysis and the expert advice. Take care. Dr.K. logos 20:02, 16 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) 00:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with WikiDan61. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - it doesn't have article in case things become notable, and this isn't notable yet. Once it gets screened somewhere it might be a good time to recreate the article (possibly in a way that makes it clearer what the series is, why it's notable, and separates out the series' plot from the fact of its existence and the details of its production). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I edit a lot of webseries pages; there's no outside coverage of any type yet for this, even by news sources that cover new media. --Milowent (talk) 12:57, 25 September 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) 22:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Adams (wrongly jailed)

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. His sole claim to notability appears to be a murder conviction and its acquittal, which is supposed to have been one of the first in which jurors testified. I don't think this minor legal precedent, if it is, related to his trial really calls for a biography, though. Delete. Dominic·t 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--per nom, basically. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article gives two reasons why the case is notable (though of course the title must be changed--possibly to the name of the case?) Pme is that it is the first time that jury members have been asked to give evidence about their role in a trial in the uk -- the conviction seems to have been due to the personal bias of one of the jurors. There surely are more sources: the court of Appeal publishes its decisions. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legal precedent such as this can well be considered notable. Per DGG. Edison (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, as I hinted in the nomination, I haven't actual seen this described in any sources as an actual legal precedent. I think what is more likely is that the single news source used as a reference for this article noted in passing that it was the first time trial jurors testified for an acquittal hearing, and that remark became the basis for a biography about a supposed "legal precedent." That fact does not appear significant enough to have been reported on by any other news outlets, much less been the subject of any actual news itself, and so it does not seem to merit an article. Besides which, there is nothing in this seeming legal precedent that should lead to a biographical article; there are no real biographical sources, just incidental news reports on the acquittal. Dominic·t 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable source meets WP:GNG. A murder conviction overturned due to jury misconduct appears to be notable([65][66]) and he is still making news after his release([67]). If he weren't notable, the theft probably wouldn't have made news. DGG, here is the link to the Appeal's decision: [68]. I would be OK with a name change, but I don't think Afd is the appropriate forum for it. Location (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The fact that his sentence was overturned doesn't suddenly make him much more notable than any other convicted murderer/murder suspect - speaking as an English law student, the EWCA (Court of Appeal) looks at dozens of appeals of this sort a year. It also doesn't help that the central source is the Daily Mail, a newspaper which is chock full of "Miscarriages of Justice and Other Reasons Why The Government And Judiciary Are Bad". I find Location's argument around this to be flawed; the fact that a local northern newspaper thinks he's notable means we should? Really? We set higher standards in some ways than national papers, nevermind local rags. Providing the bailii judgment is similarly useless; almost all cases at that level are noted by one of the Law Reports. The fact that it appears on BAILII doesn't make it notable, it makes it clear that the judgment is a EWCA one. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, as the person is known only for this unfortunate event. Any precedent set by the appeal case can surely find a better home. Kevin (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One reliable source, no source to verify that his case set a legal precedent. Does not pass GNG, fails BLP1E. Lara 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's another classic WP:BLP1E. I'm not seeing any other reason for this subject to be notable, Also, there's a dearth of reliable sources, as Lara notes - Alison ^❤ 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ironholds is absolutely correct. Mr. Hed 00:47, 26 September 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Study in Consciousness

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

This book by Annie Besant is not notable and is already covered by her biographical page and so is an unnecessary content fork. Google news has two articles about this book, the newspaper articles are from 1908 and 1933. There are some mentions in Google Scholar but the work was not ground breaking and considering how long it has been around is very poorly cited. The article should be deleted. I can see no details that are reliably sourced for merging to the main biographical page. Ash (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is interesting to have an article about an early example of a book on consciousness studies which became so popular during the 1970s. However, the article does need more sources. Keraunos (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Interesting, a question of opinion, does not address the issue of notable as per the nomination. Refer to WP:INTERESTING.—Ash (talk) 19:55, 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, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 September 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. JForget 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kia (occult)

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

Half article self-referenced. Remaining references are from fringe sources. Article appears to be on a non-notable metaphysical claim of a single occultist. Some in-universe issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as quite nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a serious misreading of the actual fringe theory guidelines. "Fringe theory" is defined therein this way: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Spiritual and metaphysical beliefs, however obscure, cannot fall within this definition. They cannot be falsified, in a Popperian sense. Moreover, the content of these beliefs define their mainstream for believers.

This article is about a rather vaguely defined belief devised by Austin Osman Spare, a significant figure in esotericism. There is no "mainstream" against whom Spare's view can contrast, unless you imagine that "mainstream" to be those who reject Spare's system; that would introduce an unacceptable positivist bias. And treating spiritual beliefs as if they were works of fiction - the only possible significance of "in-universe issues" - would also introduce bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:FRINGE vis-a-vis non-falsifiable subjects.Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nonnotable: someone's personal occult term not reasonably discussed. Mukadderat (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague to be included as a separate article. Any necessary material can be included in his article. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 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, NW (Talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Austin Osman Spare if there a 3rd party references. Religion and occult topics should be documented if it's more than a single person's delusion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 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) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Verkerk

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

Unreferenced BLP. Contested ProD. Being ranked at the junior level of an amateur sport does not constitute notability, and search results do not give any other support for notability. Primary author has persistently removed categories (not grounds for deletion but unusual behaviour) dramatic (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to failure to cite any sources, the article makes no attempt at asserting notability or historical relevance. Total volume of content within the article is negligible at best. Aramova (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the article been this short last night I would have slapped a speedy on it. Oddly, most of the content has been removed by the editor who put it there initially. dramatic (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I'm not even convinced the details given in the current version count as a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable, no news results, 9 Google hits. XLerate (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails WP:N. Likely fails COI rules. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:58, 23 September 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. There seems to be broad agreement here that the topic does not meet notability guidelines. If there is consensus to merge at a later time, the content can be restored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Online

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

Contested PROD. Product not released yet. No proof of notability. Not much in Google. No independent references. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until someone either makes a way better article, or good sources are found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:14, 17 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) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources presented or coming from a search, WP:N has not been passed. No concrete details are available at this time and there is no basis for an article at this time; that may change in the future closer to its release. Someone another 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The release is 2010 and has been announced. I will edit the article to reflect more information but at the time of creation the information was hazy. Now there is more concrete information about this upcoming game and you can keep watch on this article to make sure I add more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianallison (talk • contribs)

Thanks for trying to improve things but without significant coverage in independent reliable sources it is not going to pass the notability criteria even if it is well written. What you can do, if it gets deleted, is request a copy be put in your user space. That way you can keep a copy and maybe bring it back as an article once the game is released if there is significant coverage then. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Without current significant coverage (and we need something other than press releases (WP:N)), I would suggest a merge. Preferably this would be the game developer, but as they do not currently have an article, this should be Hangame. Marasmusine (talk) 12:30, 27 September 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 Blizzard Entertainment. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fitch Jr

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

Not clear that he is notable per WP:BIO. No WP:GHITS. One external reference in the article is an automated, impersonal listing of his games and the other includes him in a discussion of one of the games—he himself isn't a topic of the interview. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I shall try and find a more suitable source, but will understand if the article is deleted.LordNatonstan (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this information can be verified, then merge to Blizzard Entertainment (sans videography), otherwise delete. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 21 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, 23 September 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 13 days with no arguments for deletion aisde from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Every Three Weekly

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

non-notable student newspaper. Coverage given and found is entirely 1) on the site or 2) in relation to other things. Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the newspaper was indeed founded in 1889, and has maintained publication since, then I'd say there's a very good case for notability. However, the article reads like the satires the newspaper is apparently known for - it's unencyclopedic to note that the paper "stepped onto the national scene with balance and poise". The sources are non-existent, mainly external links to other organizations referred to in the article. This could probably be cut down to a stub, but for the fact that we can't document anything in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the newspaper was indeed founded in 1889, and has maintained publication since, and still doesn't pass WP:GNG, then I'd say there's a very good case for deletion. WP:GNG is and should be seen as the base level. Ironholds (talk) 01:16, 17 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) 00:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many established student papers other than a school's primary daily paper have an individual page on wikipedia, such as Stanford Chaparral, The Georgetown Voice, and Tiger Weekly. Looks like this article was created on September 13. Clearly a lot of the work done since the original prod comes from people with some relation to the publication (because they can't help but be funny), but that can be fixed, see, e.g., College humor magazines and the category listing all the individual college humor magazines already in the project, such as Heuristic Squelch, Lush For Life, and Golden Words. Coverage of this publication includes a good number of cites I quickly found from the major UoM paper, so its clear this isn't some unknown publication in the relevant community: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] --Milowent (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:as Milowent. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:28, 23 September 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) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearshore Solutions

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

delete, non notable company. majority of sources are company related. Bordeline attacks the company without sourceing it "Strategy

"NearShore Solutions exploits the low cost of living and pay in Belarus." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally while not a deletion reason I have major concerns over an article created and edited by a Project Administrater as it is a big COI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 16 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) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all hits for it appear to be promotional listings - nothing that supports notability. dramatic (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I reached the same conclusion as Dramatic. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 23 September 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Miller

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. No significant roles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is sourced, he has had roles in a tv movie which he starred in, and will star in an upcoming TV series. He also had a minor role in a film. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - "Will star..." is not notable, nor is the minor role. The source (singular) is not independent. This leaves him (supposedly) starring in a non-notable production without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor who's only roles are minor. Deserted Cities 04:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 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) 00:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not a ton of roles, but seems to meet basic notability criteria. Played the younger version of a lead in a studio film, and has apparently been cast in a large role for a Disney TV show. Seems to meet basic notability. Agreed that additional RS other than IMDB and Disney are greatly needed, though. Whitespider23 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has zero independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source and Disney is not independent. Thus, he is not the subject of "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources" by any measure and is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Additionally, the roles are minor or in non-notable productions. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to the upcoming TV show he's starring in. He's not really notable now but he's clearly going to be, when the TV show starts (it's already in production). Maybe this defies WP:CRYSTAL but it seems pointless to delete it just to create it again in a few months; at least if it becomes a redirect, the history's still preserved as a starting point. Propaniac (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When he becomes notable, he will be notable. At the moment he isn't. As for the TV show, that article is also lacking: it cites nothing but a press release, which is not "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources". So, we have someone who (we think) will be notable when the currently non-notable show comes out. At the moment, though, we don't have the coverage we need. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, you really don't have to respond to every single opinion, especially when you're reiterating the same statements made in that opinion, or reiterating the exact same words you've written several times. Anyone reading this discussion is well aware by now that Logan Miller has not apparently received "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources." Also, there's no question that a flagship program on a major cable network will be notable. Propaniac (talk) 19:22, 23 September 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 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New England prep school

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

Unreferenced OR essay. No demonstration that college preparatory schools in New England are inherently different from college preparatory schools in other regions. Durova³¹¹ 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The entire idea is ridiculous. Yes, the older and more prestigious prep schools in the States are mostly in New England, but the older and more prestigious public schools in England are mostly in southern England and we don't have a 'Southern English Public School' article, do we? Now, if someone wanted to create a new article about prep schools in the United States, including their development in New England, separate from the current article on university-preparatory schools around the world, that might not be such a bad idea. PatriciusCoquus (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, edit heavily and rename to List of New England preparatory schools. Most of the article is, of course, POV/OR. However, the list at the end is both verifiable and useful. I suggest removing all the text and converting to a list page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Actually, prep schools in New England may be a little different than in the rest of the nation. They tend to be very old, many dating back to the 1700s, and many have ties with Ivy League universities, particularly Harvard. There's an iconic status in that some of these schools are famous throughout the US, while similarly selective prep schools in other regions of the country are not. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:25, 19 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) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This needs citation, improvement, and removal of any unverifiable opinion, but concept and notability is sound. I added one cite, fyi (can someone get the references to appear below table, what did i do wrong? --Milowent (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a strong source is found: The article as it currently exists has a lot of truth in it, but is essentially original research and it is strongly infused with POV. The topic is not "New England prep schools" in general, but rather the subset of elite and exclusive New England prep schools. There are many more preparatory schools in New England that aren't on this list, presumably because they enroll only girls (e.g., Miss Porter's School), aren't considered quite so elite as the ones on the list (e.g., Berkshire School), or are strictly day schools (although the article doesn't indicate it, the schools mentioned are all primarily boarding schools). If this definition/categorization can be supported by reliable sources (not including The Preppy Handbook or similar cruft), then keep it, but don't keep it unless there is a third-party source for classifying schools in the manner of the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Followup: I found the kind of source I was looking for: the 1987 book Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools, but it's not specifically about New England prep schools. (Schools outside New England that seem to be mentioned, based on the limited preview I could see online, include Lawrenceville School in New Jersey, The Hill School in Pennsylvania, Fountain Valley School in Colorado, and The Webb Schools in California.) I also found an article in Forbes that is shorter, but is not limited to either boarding schools or New England. I don't think there's RS support for defining the topic in this manner. --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 1 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) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee

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

Non-notable neologism... prodded, but prod was removed by creator... Adolphus79 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Nothing more to say. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Evil saltine (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:24, 24 September 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. MuZemike 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation (Theosophy)

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

This article is an unnecessary content fork of Alice A. Bailey of a concept created by her and entirely reliant on her book "Initiation, Human and Solar". The same concept is already discussed on her lengthy and extensive biographical page (~~which manages to repeat many of her anti-Jewish comments~~) so a deletion is needed rather than a merge. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other special terms and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were "telepathically dictated to her". I note that the creator of this page has created other content and point of view forks around the topic of Theosophy. Ash (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. IIRC, the Theosophical Society did not offer formal initiations, and this would appear to be matter better handled at ascended master or similar concepts; these aren't initiations in a conventional sense, but rather a claimed ladder of spiritual development in a hereafter. FWIW, Bailey's racial opinions are not really relevant to this discussion. And ideas dictated by telepathy have an equal chance of becoming notable as any other ideas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've struck the anti-Jewish comment from the nomination to avoid confusion, having raised it now on the Bailey talk page. I agree with your comment about notability; I put quotes around "telepathically dictated to her" in the nomination because it was a quote from the article rather than a sarcastic dismissal.—Ash (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-citations are ok for determining the relevance of the topic to the Bailey article, but do not establish notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important Theosophical philosophical concept and useful to someone who wants to do research about the Theosophy. Keraunos (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as the article on reincarnation is necessary to explain Hinduism and Buddhism (and Theosophy), so this article is necessary to explain Theosophy. Keraunos (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I added to the article, the concept was also extensively covered by C.W. Leadbeater, so it does not have to do with Alice A. Bailey only. Keraunos (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Reincarnation is a commonly used concept, notable outside of Buddhism or Hinduism and not written to "explain" those religions. The same can not be said for Initiation (theosophy) and that is why it is a clear content fork as per the nomination; your argument appears invalid.—Ash (talk) 04:47, 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) 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but one sources are primary sources. Tend to agree with nominator that metaphysical concepts specific to notable spiritual figures are not necessarily notable themselves. If there is notable material in the article it should go into the Alice A. Bailey article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of Initiation is important because it presents a Western view of reincarnation as a dynamic process of spiritual evolution rather than the Eastern concept of reincarnation as an eternal return. Keraunos (talk) 06:44, 30 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Cancer Foundation

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

Article created by one of its founders. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources beyond the 2 (non primary source) references given. Other hits appear to refer to another Ohio based charity with the same name. RadioFan (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Group has not achieved notability. Press coverage is based on the notability of the Remote Area Medical (RAM) event that UCF's founder Kaplan is organizing, not for UCF's own activities. UCF's "Health Care for America" page claims that "we will be offering free health care..." but in reality, it is RAM that is offering those services, with Kaplan as a local organizer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:36, 16 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) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. - DustyRain (talk) 19:05, 24 September 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 Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger W. Pageau

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

Not notable Vidkun (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – to Grand Lodge of Massachusetts with just a short bio of Mr. Pageau as the current Grand Master. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:33, 16 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) 00:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ShoesssS--TParis00ap (talk) 02:11, 23 September 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. Arguments for keeping the article more explicitly refute the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPLAT!

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

Deprodded, Non-notable looks like an article written just to give visibility to a specific product with no encyclopedic interest. Was proposed for deletion, but its author removed the request. --Pot (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Splat as a plausible typo judging from the various SPLAT!-titled projects on the dab. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 17 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) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep per coverage mentioned on software's website; 3 newsletter/magazine articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per comments above. I found the site while looking for info on the Longley–Rice model, although the link to Longley-Rice from this article was broken (I fixed it). If notability exists as Cybercobra says, then it should remain. I don't know too much about the subject matter, and I admit it needs a lot of work to make it more encyclopedic and less like an advertisement. -Sme3 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 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. Basically it boils down to meeting the general notability guideline versus a more common sense rationale that this halfway rich person isn't notable per the given sources. No rough consensus for either occurred. MuZemike 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kaveh Alamouti

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

Page moved, now at:

British investment banker/money manager. Notable only for being wealthy. Prod declined, with the reasoning "₤140 million is enough--the Times coverage shows the notability". But the link to the Times is simply an entry on a list of wealthiest people in Britain, not an article. And what's more, the list shows him as the 388th richest person in Britain. That hardly makes him notable: having a fat wallet alone doesn't make you encyclopedia material.

There's two bits of actual coverage, but they're from peripheral news services and may in fact be press releases. And they announce him filling less than senior positions. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 16 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) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since he is worth that much , there should be references. nd there are ,55 in Google News archive alone. Some, but by no means all , are press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are references, I'm just not convinced they establish notability. As for "388th richest person in Britain," who cares? Hairhorn (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The size of his bank account doesn't evidence notability in iteslf, but there is some discussion of him in der Standard [74] which gives the evidence needed. Them From Space 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just did a quick tidy of the article to make it more specific and remove peacock terms; now that that's done it comes across to me as little more than a vanity page / online resume. His notability's not established by anything currently included in the article; if anyone changes it so as to show that notability let me know and I'll reconsider my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads more like a resume, as noted above. Being the 388th richest person in Britian isn't an adequate claim to notability. ƒ(Δ)² 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per weak delete request and strong sourcing.--Judo112 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 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) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sula Kim

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nomination after previous AfD was closed due to having been started by a banned user. This is not just a procedural nomination: my opinion is that this article should be deleted. Local journalist, only GNews hits are bylines and trivial mentions. The fact that we have articles about other local non-notable journalists is not justification for keeping this article. Thanks, cab (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:56, 16 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) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The coverage in Google News Archive is limited to passing mentions. The Google Books results are false positives that are unrelated to this individual, and a Google search returns mostly social-networking sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pipl, etc. The subject fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 25 September 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. MuZemike 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Heinrich

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, hardly any coverage in gnews [75]. Google books confirms he has co-authored much more books than authored. but simply being an author doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 16 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) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately referenced that demonstrates notability. Gillyweed (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep His principal book "Strange fruit : alchemy, religion and magical foods : a speculative history " has been translated into German, Japanese, and Czech. Multiple translations normally indicate a considerable amount of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 September 2009
Delete He seems to be a significant player in a rather narrow field. A scan pulled up 15 citations by others and that's not even using Google Scholar which lists more. If we use WP:ACADEMIC he's not notable but appears to be so under WP:AUTHOR point 1. Now it gets sticky in that I'd rather see a 2nd hand reliable-source that says "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" rather than committing original research and determining that for ourselves. It's this failure of a reliable source cover the subject (Clark Heinrich), and that he is an important figure, that tilted it into delete for me. I've messaged Clark as he may be aware of coverage that would qualify him as notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd have thught a significant player in a narrow field would suggest that he was suitably notable! Gillyweed (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but so far there's no evidence of significant coverage that WP:GNG hinges on of either the author or his work. Clark Heinrich replied to my message and is aware of this AFD. He hasn't said one way or another if he has received significant coverage. Part of what led me to the narrow field is that he may qualify one or more of WP:AUTHOR points 1 to 4 with respect to entheogenology. That again depends on getting the reliability-sourced evidence. The field may be small enough that it may be tough to be independent of the others. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has this page been WP:PRODed or WP:CSDed before? The edit history does not start with an "N" (new page). --Marc Kupper|talk 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deleted revisions for the page. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per establishment of minimum of fame.--Judo112 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep These are popular but not academic works; the library holdings are not many--see WorldCat here, and neither are the G Scholar hits [76]--a few citations from comparable books. But that Magic mushrooms was translated into German and Czech and Japanese is significant. What is needed here to show notability is reviews. Ihave so far not found any. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 27 September 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rees Bradley Hepburn

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

Not notable. Brandon (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it also happens to be promotional, verging on WP:SPAM Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This firm meets WP:N, as a search reveals newspaper coverage, awards, and confirmation of the client list. That said, the article needs to be re-written to include sources. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:47, 17 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) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's self-promotional and full of peacock terms - but it legitimately covers an award-winning agency that's delivered a number of very high profile campaigns. It definitely needs a lot of work as an article, but shouldn't be deleted out of hand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The award is for the best digital advertising outside of London, and, with those two qualifiers, I do not know how significant that is. I'd like advice from someone who knows the structure of this industry there, and how concentrated it is in London. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Tracy

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

No evidence of notability from reliable sources per WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the user that posted the original prod, I have to say the only sources I found on this guy merely mention his name in passing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:31, 16 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) 00:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS and none available that I could find. Whitespider23 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 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. MuZemike 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimo (lingerie)

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

The article is a mix of a lingerie brand, and a BLP. Needs a rewrite to be even close to encyclopedic. Also, a lot of it is written like promotional material, for example: she decided while wearing a very uncomfortable cleavage enhancing brassiere that she could design something better which was:

   more comfortable
   better looking
   create more cleavage

ƒ(Δ)² 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Plenty of coverage is GNews, but a lot of work needs to be done. At the very least, get rid of all the WP:PEACOCK terms. At the most, get rid of the whole lot and leave a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... edit the article to improve it. I don't see any reason for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs work not deletion, which achieves nothing except to reduce Wikipedia's completeness. GQsm ^{Talk | c} 16:36, 28 September 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.