Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 3

< 2 September	4 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Saville

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

The result was speedy deleted' per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Saville

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

Non-notable rubbish about a 10 year old. Should be a speedy, but I can't be bothered to look up procedure for a speedy --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:09, 2 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The result was withdrawn by nominator (Non-admin closure) --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 12:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never Gonna Be Alone

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

In violation of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding individual songs. This song should be covered in a larger article about the band or album. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:58, 3 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 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Else's Daughter

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

delete and merge any useful content into Murder of Anita Cobby. "Someone Else's Daughter" could mean a multiple of things [1]. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as delete and merge. Pick one: Having your cake or eating it. You cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is. delete and take any useful content into other article. there's also redirect and merge. 2 different things. I've seen this happen in a few AfDs as an outcome. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, per the GFDL, we cannot Delete and Merge. If anything is merged into the larger article, the edit history has to be preserved, and the original article must be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi- i have no vote, the above post was just a clarification. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I meant move any useful content into other article. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has anyone looked at the "article"? There is nothing to merge. At most, it could be mentioned in Murder of Anita Cobby that a novel was written about the episode. Although, when I look at that article, I don't see much sources (apart from court papers, which are primary sources) and doubt whether the whole thing is notable either. Murders, unfortunately, are rather common and although they all generate some coverage in (mostly local) newspapers (unless a famous person is involved), there is nothing particularly encyclopedic about them. Should anyone care to bring Murder of Anita Cobby to AfD, I'd vote delete on that one as well. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Crusio says, the article has nothing to merge, nothing is sourced, the article as nothing more than "this book exists". On the side issue not being decided here, the Murder of Anita Cobby article mentions an episode of Crime Investigation Australia about the murder which, along with this book, would go a long way to keeping that article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this book also fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 7 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. Basically, wrong content of the article. If anyone would like to create an article about Rubenstein, let me know. Tone 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army Deputy Surgeon General

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

The position of "Army Deputy Surgeon General" does not, afaik, have any notability attached to it, and that's ignoring the fact that it doesn't directly address the position anyway. Fails WP:GNG, delete. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Surgeon General of the United States Army. I think it's a pretty notable position, but it doesn't merit its own article. ceranthor 19:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's actually just the bio of a three star; not particularly notable. Buckshot06(prof) 01:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Buckshot. The article is incorrectly named for a start, as it is actually about David Rubenstein and not the position of Deputy Surgeon General. Rubenstein might be notable (given that he is a major general), although with all due respect to the man from what I can see it seems that he has had a fairly uneventful career (it would be easier to assess notability if a proper biography were written, rather than the resume that this article is). Finally, the article is little more than a copy and paste job of the USAMD biography which is probably in the public ___domain, thus not a copy violation, however, its existence on Wiki adds nothing more to the internet as a whole. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 8 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) Erik9 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Little Dinosaurs

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

This is one of those cardboard books with the googly eyes that show through each page, and utterly non-notable. Another article created by this editor is up for AfD at present; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Can Name 100 Dinosaurs! and Other Prehistoric Animals. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this (won two awards and is a best seller). There is also this (review). Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rethinking nom... But it won Colorado Book Awards (author is from Colorado), was number three in childrens, and "curledupkids.com" isn't my idea of a reliable source. Abductive (reasoning) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - book has been covered in multiple RS and was a best seller. Sources include: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and many others. The characters were also turned into puppets ([7]) which doesn't normally happen for non-notable children's books. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... let alone utterly non-notable ones. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to have been enough sources that cover this book in enough detail to meet the notability requirement. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:05, 9 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 procedural close. This is Article for Deletion, not Requests for Redirect. Discussions as to the appropriateness of redirecting belong on the article talk page. Skomorokh 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Archer

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

Auditionee in reality TV series who we don't even know if he's made it to the final 12 contestants yet. He has no notability outside of his single audition, so WP:1E applies. I redirected the article twice to The X Factor (UK series 6) but have been reverted both times. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is not just for posterity. It is for right now, and right now people are going to want to read about him. Deleting this would only reduce Wikipedia's usefulness. Policies be damned, this guy's performance was the best thing I've ever seen on telly, and others agree so they will want to see an article about him. Uktvd (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Cheers, I'^mperator 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and discuss on talk page whether to redirect or not. This is not a place to solve any article problems. If worst comes to worst, go to ANI or MEDCAB. Cheers, I'^mperator 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:1E. From the nominators statement I note that this seems to be his first choice; Articles for Deletion is for deletion, not to resolve editing disputes. If you are being reverted, get a third opinion to establish some form of consensus. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 7 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. editors are split in regards to the notability of the individual JForget 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romapada Swami

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

Does not meet notability criteria. No secondary reliable source to support material of the article. Wikid ^as© 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic was disscussed on previous AfD debates on ISKCON personalities. One of the opinions that was given by Wikipedia editors, is that

we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability.

Another criteria for notability is a membership in the Governing Body Commission. Romapada Swami is a swami, initiating guru, and a member of the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON. In other words, he's a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus, out of those, only 22 swamis are initiating gurus and governing body commissioners at the same time. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree),

It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association".

ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Re: Gaura79 comment: Membership or being a member of the Governing Body Commission does not seem to be a sufficient merit. Moreover no third party source mentions it (there are some 80 members in and out over the years of the Governing Body Commission) , if this is the real notability criteria, merge it to Governing Body Commission article. There is no requirement to promote advertisement of one particular GBC member over the others (note that even some of the members of the Governing Body Commission who have third party mention of the membership were recently merged or redirected to the Governing Body Commission article. Previous AfD was closed without consensus. I hope to reach consensus on this one. Wikid ^as© 11:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous AfD debates were closed with consensus to keep, some with no consensus. Let me again explain my point. Being just a member of the Governing Body Commission doesn't make one notable. Being just a sannyasi doesn't make one notable. Being just an initiating guru doesn't make one notable. The combination of those things does make one notable. If Romapada Swami would be a member of GBC and nothing more, this article should have been merged with the GBC article. If he would be just a sannyasi OR initiating guru OR governing body commissioner, he would deserve an article in Wikipedia only if he would get a significant coverage in RS outside of ISKCON. Also to become sannyasi or initiating guru in ISKCON is much more difficult than to become a governing body commissioner. Hence, the group of guru/sanyasis is more selective and important. Each of 50 ISKCON leaders, belonging to this group of guru/sannyasi does deserve an article in Wikipedia just as leaders of any other notable religious denomination. What to speak of group of guru/sannyasi/GBC, which presently has only 22 members. Every member of this group is notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus as to why a guru/sannyasi/gbc to have a separate page. Example is the summary bio of Param Gati Swami (you made it) on the Governing Body Commission article. No separate sources as to notability exist for this guru/sannyasi/gbc as well, and it is not a policy to keep unsourced BLPs on Wiki. Gaura79 - you have agreed to it.Wikid ^as©

Yes, I agreed with you on Pragosha Dasa, Malati Devi Dasi and Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami. None of them is a guru in ISKCON, and only one of them is a sannyasi. There're some sources on Param Gati Swami online in Portuguese. He preaches mainly in Brazil, so I'm sure he got quite some coverage there over the years, but we just don't have acces to everething through Internet, right? --Gaura79 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have agreed for the following list:

Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami
Smita Krishna Swami
Pragosha Dasa
Ramai Swami
Param Gati Swami
Kadamba Kanana Swami
Romapada Swami
Malati Devi Dasi
Prahladananda Swami-- at 11:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)it your words

There is nothing magical about combination of guru/sannyasi/gbc that lets it pass the basic guidelines of notability and third party checking and coverage? Wikid ^as© 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This combination creates a notable senior religious leader.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to accept this, in approximate comparison with other religious groups. It's a rational criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria. In addition, there is a lack of secondary reliable sources to support the material in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He gets coverage here and in this 1978 book in portuguese, where some details of his life are given. He also gets some coverage here, here (he was representing ISKCON in a major court case), and here, This mention appears to be trivial. There must be more coverage of him, it is a fact that not everything is available online. He's one of the less known leaders of ISCKON, so he gets less coverage than others. I still think that any individual from a small group of about 50 religious leaders of ISKCON, who are gurus and sannyasis, deserves to have a page on Wiki. Let's not forget that senior leaders of other religious denominations are present here and nobody puts up their articles for deletion every few month. And most of those articles are solely based on religious sources. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one is a sannyasi or a guru, it is not a sufficient ground for inclusion. One has to be notable, like every other article on Wikipedia. Just because someone sometimes gives talks in universities it does not make him or her notable. There has to be substantial coverage by the third party sources that are independent of the subject -- ie text of the promotional leaflets or blurbs is not acceptable. The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him. Every significant religious leader would have a third party source that at least calls him 'leader'. This is not the case here. Wikid ^as© 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him.

What do you mean by that? Maybe you take a better look?--Gaura79 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked again - in Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole 2007 (a good source) there is no mention of Romapada Swami. Are you confusing him with Romapada dasa? All other sources also do not refer to him being a swami or a leader? Are we just to assume it based on some OR or self published promotional lecture material? Wikid ^as© 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This trivial mention was of another Romapada so I removed it. Practically all the independent sources cited in the article are from the period before he took sannyasa and therefore refer to him as Romapada Das or Roma Pada or Ramapada Das. He receives significant coverage in this book in portuguese, there's an article about him here (Where he's refered as His Holiness Romapada Swami by the way). He receives some coverage in 3-4 other sources. Also he was a plaintiff in a courtcase that went to the US Supreme Court, which also makes him notable. And ISKCON sources cited in the article are quite reliable when his position in ISKCON's religious hierarchy is concerned. I think this article deserves a keep.--Gaura79 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highly influential ISKCON figure.Pectore^talk 15:27, 9 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) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Joy

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

This album has yet to chart and so fails WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't and has never been a requirement for albums, only singles. A general rule about albums in WP:MUSIC is that "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". This is an officially released album by a notable band, and has not exactly gone under the radar. I see no policy- or guideline-based reason to delete this article. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above reasoning. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album has gained sufficient notability through multiple reviews in reliable sources (references have been added to the article, see also here). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:31, 4 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. There's a consensus that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Scanzano

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

This person really hasn't done anything to pass WP:ATHLETE in my opinion. A speedy was declined due to perceived crystalballing, so I am asking for a consensus on this article here. ArcAngel (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did not decline the speedy due to perceived crystal balling. I declined because the article claims she played for the Montreal Axion of the National Women's Hockey League, which at the time was at the top level of club play for women's hockey in North America. Reso lute 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 04:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jesse has played in the fully professional womens league with the Montreal Axion. This clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since she played in the NWHL, which was a fully professional league, she satisfies the notability guidelines for an athlete. -Pparazorback (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not certain that the NWHL was fully professional. I don't think the WWHL or the CWHL (which succeeded the NWHL) are either. They are, however, the top level of women's hockey in Canada/North America. Reso lute 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right that they aren't considered fully professional. Either way its the top level of their sport. -DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like everyone has said, the NWHL is considered professional womens hockey.Warriorshockey1 (talk) 01:53, 5 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. There are problems with the contents of this page, but none that cannot be resolved by regular editing, or, in the extreme case, redirecting. Skomorokh 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Lord your God

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

~~PROD contested. Appears to be Original Research~~ -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination for deletion Having re-read the article a couple of times, and compared the references with what is in the article, and having read the comments here, I am persuaded that this article (although requiring work) ~~should~~ could be kept. I would be grateful if an admin would close this AfD. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral To clarify, by withdrawing the nomination, I am not !voting keep or delete (and have amended my previous statement from 'should be kept' to 'could be kept', which is what I meant to say originally). Any closing admin (or other editors wishing to comment on this AfD) should not infer that my withdrawal of the nomination is a Keep. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: surely this is a fork of Ten commandments. The article is not about "I am the Lord your god", it is about the ten commandments, and at least some of the content seems to be a copy of Ten commandments. We already have an article on the ten commandments, we don't need another one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Elen of the Roads got it right. Anything beyod what is already in Ten commandments is a pure-OR fork. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't appear to be a fork of Ten commandments but rather an elaboration on one of the finer points of the commandments, namely the personalization of God. The article is well structured, well referenced, and well balanced, citing views from multiple Abrahamic traditions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ten commandments. I agree with WikiDan61 that the article is well-structured, well-referenced, and well-balanced, and I believe WP:PRESERVE requires us to consider where to put well-sourced content when deciding a subject is not suitable for a separate article.
However, I also agree with Elen of the Roads and OwenX that this is a fork. I do not agree that it is original research; it may be a synthesis, but it does not advance a particular position.
All the above would indicate a "keep" outcome, but I think it better to have a smaller number of articles, each of which is longer and watched by more interested editors, than a plethora of small articles each watched by only a few. I think the Wiki model works best when more editors are involved, and I also think it helps end-users of the encyclopaedia if thematically-grouped content is kept together in the same article so they do not have to search or follow links to find the information they need. And further, I think much of the content of this article is duplicated in ten commandments so a merge would be more economical in terms of reading time for end-users.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer to Merge. The article is highly synthesized. While it has references, it also contains pockets of original research. My inclination is to merge it with Ten Commandments. Majoreditor (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as redirect to Ten Commandments: it's good research, but it's still original research. Note that we shouldn't merge anything that is believed to be original research or synthesis: if it's a problem here, it would be a problem at any merge target. Please note that the creator of this page has copied the content on his/her userpage; if this is deleted without a decision to userfy, we'll need to delete the userpage under G4. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are few circumstances in which it is appropriate to delete reliably-sourced content from Wikipedia. It may be decided that the article is not about a notable subject, or that it is original research, but in that case reliably-sourced content should normally be merged elsewhere. "Delete and redirect" in this case would be directly in contravention of the relevant content policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would prefer keeping this if the POV and synthesis can be excised, because useful information is in there, but that seems like a lot of work; otherwise, merge back. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards keep, with more emphasis on the "Other occurrences" section and judicious cutting of material that is more directly repetitive of the content of Ten Commandments. "I am the Lord your God" is not only the First Commandment; this phrase recurs dozens of times in the Torah, and the significance of its repetition in all these other places has been a subject of concentrated interpretation over the millenia. Among other things, the phrase is seen as a marker for the so-called Holiness Code. Any annotated Bible will have notes and commentary on this issue, and it's a standard subject of commentaries and criticism as well. A few examples of the latter, courtesy of Google Books: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] I acknowledge the legitimate concerns and good arguments for merger expressed by other editors, but I do think this is a legitimate topic that goes beyond the boundaries of the Ten Commandments.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps it could be userfied until it is ready for inclusion in article space? I am still not convinced that it should remain in article as it stands, but I would support userfying it -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication would still constitute removing sourced content from the mainspace, so I'm afraid I would object to that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- This is a key Biblical passage, both for Jews and Christians, dealing with the opening phrase of the Ten Commandments. That article is already a substantial one, and merging it would not be appropriate. This article provides a broad commentary on the views on the views of both concerning the passage, and is probably close to deserving GA status. I certainly would not want WP to have a commentary on every verse of the Bible, but to have one on this one is wholly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm no expert, but I don't think this is a fork of Ten Commandments at all. If it must be merged, it would be far more profitable to look at Form criticism, Documentary hypothesis or especially Jahwist as targets. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeremy (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep reasons: 1) The phrase occurs in many places in the bible other than the decalogue. 2) There is significant information here and, really, you can't cram everything into one article (i.e. Ten Commandmants) Wikilinks exist so that editors can expand on just this kind of significant information. I suspect taht the nom is perhaps not familiar with scholarship on the Bible (none of us can know every field) and made a good faith assumption that this as a fork, when it clearly is not.Historicist (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally obvious is the need for editing by someone with some familiarity with the scholarly literature. That, of course, applies to half the articles on Wikipedia. Inadequacy is no reason for deletion. As I have often siad, if editors would spend more time editing and adding information and less time.... Historicist (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have those claiming original research checked the references? Specifically, what conclusions are drawn that are not in the references? So far, no one has offered specific examples to support the claim of synthesis or supported the idea that there is enough synthesis to justify wholesale deletion or userfication rather than the more common improvement process by the broader editorial community. The bulk of the article is direct description of material in secondary sources. There are no "verify source", "unreferenced", or "syn" tags in the article. Shouldn’t this have been done before nominating the article for deletion, per WP:BEFORE? How much of the original 5700+ word article could the original AfD nominator have read in 12 minutes between the article being posted and his proposed deletion - allowing zero time to notice the posting. How much checking of sources could have been done? The burden of evidence is met for most of this article. It is imperfect (see WP:Imperfect, WP:Preserve), but it is an acceptable start, and above average in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, neutral point of view, notability, and encyclopedic content.Corinne68 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - debate previously closed by me as Nom withdrawn - reopened per request.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 14:18, 10 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) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Deluigi

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

No record he played a professional match at Swiss Super League[19] and he did not play at lower division [20] Matthew_hk t c 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable athlete and article fails general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spiderone 15:15, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Burrage

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

The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 22:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Burrage

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

Very little to suggest that this person is notable; full of miscellaneous trivia, the only "sources" are the subject's self-published material. PROD removed with a rather touching edit-summary. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, withdraw – hadn't noticed the major edit!! My fault entirely. Could someone competent close this, please? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:55, 3 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. as WP:HOAX JForget 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophe bluffs

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

No refs turned up on search engines, seems a hoax to me. Athe Weatherman 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable without sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 6 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) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Armstrong

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

Lecturer at Scottish university = assistant professor in US terms; publication record is far too thin to have any accumulation of citations. No other evidence of notability; difficult to tell on GNews because of common name, but adding "history" to the search produces minimal results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that he is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is not an automatic indication that WP:PROF#3 is satisfied, since "fellow" is synonymous with "member" in the case of this society (source). --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lecturers at U.K. universities are usually tenured whereas assistant professors at U.S. universities are usually not. Therefore he is more equivalent to an associate professor in U.S. terms. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I can assure you this is not true (having done my PhD in the US but having spent many years working in British universities). Lecturer is the first rank, the job that new PhDs get. What then happens (e.g. after a year or two, possibly three) is that someone passes probation -- a very different animal than tenure review. When one is promoted to Senior Lecturer, then there is equivalence to associate professor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that passing probation is a different animal to the US tenure review, which is much more formidable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. May become WP notable later but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. In addition to what was already said, he does not seem to have ~~any~~enough books held by libraries according to WorldCat. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Article created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did another, more elaborate, search and found approximately 130 libraries worldwide holding the book Seven Eggs Today. Not enough for WP:PROF, I’m afraid.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior academic with one book. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 10 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftlos (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Familiar of Zero characters

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

This list article seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that it is not encyclopedic but rather a list of characters and trivia from a work of fiction. I doubt the notability of such a list. Moreover, the talk page reads like a fan forum. Lhynard (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Farix (Talk) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list does need cleaned up, like removing the trivial stats from the character description. However, these are not a reason for deletion. Character lists are considered valid spinout articles when the list becomes too long or contains to many significant characters to contain within the main article. And unless the list comprises almost entirely of minor characters, the main work is not notable, or the list does not comply with WP:SALAT, these lists are almost never deleted. --Farix (Talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, merge back to the main article rather than delete, but given that, even after cleaning up this would cause the main article to get too large and focus unduly on the cast, I'm against that. I note that the cast of characters of a work, be it a novel, television show, or comic book (and this is all three), is important to the understanding of the work. As Farix notes, past precedent strongly supports the notion that standalone character lists are appropriate spinout articles. Thus, I say keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the reasons already given. The nominator may not be familiar with how character lists are handled whether it be in WP:ANIME or some other WikiProject. I agree that the article needs a major revamp, and would disagree with a merge as it would bloat the main article.--十八 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm just not familiar with how lists are dealt with on Wikipedia, as you say. I did read up on WP for lists, and it didn't seem to belong at all from all the policies I read -- but then, neither do the other hundred similar lists I saw categorized. If the precedent is to keep such lists, fair enough.Lhynard (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then, just to clarify, do you withdraw your nomination? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think I'll just "wait it out" and see what others have to say and what the admins do. I still think it (and a large bulk of other related list articles) are A) in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in no way encyclopedic; B) in violation of WP:DIRECTORY in that it is a "complete exposition of all possible details" and in no way "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding [the] subject"; C) in violation of WP:SIZE; D) in violation of WP:V, since it almost entirely cites primary sources and not secondary or third-party ones; and finally E) in violation of WP:NB (for books), in that it does not meet even one of the five citeria listed for books to be notable according to Wikipedia. In short, there are plenty of other places to host such listings of very specific information for fans of anime and manga, but I don't see Wikipedia as that place. But if the admins choose to not delete it, that is fine.Lhynard (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a clarification, I am not opposed to lists. Of course, there is a place for them on Wikipedia. This is an excellent one, that does not have the above problems: List of Naruto characters. Lhynard (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So essentially, you're complaining that this one hasn't been developed enough compared to that one? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not so much complaining as suggesting that it is better to delete an article in violation of so many Wikipedia policies than to tag it countless times for all of the violations. But maybe that's not the case. I have nothing against the "idea" of this particular article. Are article deletions based on the "idea" of "hypothetical" articles or the actual articles themselves? (I admit that I am new to this, so this is all a learning experience.) Should I withdraw this nomination for deletion and go and tag up the article instead? Lhynard (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Up to you - I'm pretty sure we'll see a WP:SNOW keep in any event. Tagging would actually be nice, gives us ideas for what to work on in the future. It may be the case that it will not be updated for a good long time, but see also WP:DEADLINE and WP:WNF. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Good points; thanks for the links. I need to run to something, but anyone can feel free to remove this nomination for deletion. See, I wasn't just trying to be an ass. I'll go and tag the article for changes at some later time, and hopefully the article can be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks to everyone for responding and being nice. Lhynard (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        AFDs are, technically, supposed to be on the concept rather than condition, yes. In practice, sometimes the decision is that the current content is so, er, broken that it's best to wipe the slate clean -- but this is usually only done when the content is largely wrong or hopelessly distorted, as opposed to needing scrubbing and developing further. Sometimes, as policy recognizes, you have to start with a dirty article before you can clean it up. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk this one by one

A) in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in no way encyclopedic

Past precedent have shown that character lists, when done correctly, are encyclopedic and are not considered indiscriminate information. If anything, character lists tend to violate WP:WAF, but that is a cleanup issue and not reasons to delete the list.

B) in violation of WP:DIRECTORY in that it is a "complete exposition of all possible details" and in no way "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding [the] subject"

A character list should not contain every character that appears in the work. If it does, then the insignificant characters should be removed, leaving only the significant characters. Also, character discrimination should be a brief summary describing the character's role in the plot. If a character summary is too detailed, then it should be trimmed. Again, both of these are cleanup issues and not reasons to delete the list.

C) in violation of WP:SIZE

I'm not seeing as how that is applicable.

D) in violation of WP:V, since it almost entirely cites primary sources and not secondary or third-party ones

It shouldn't be that hard to find a reviewer that talks about the characters, so this is a red harring. In the end, this is a cleanup issue and not a reason to delete the list.

E) in violation of WP:NB (for books), in that it does not meet even one of the five citeria listed for books to be notable according to Wikipedia.

List fall under a different set of inclusion criteria instead of notability. Those standards are defined at WP:SALAT. So long as the parent topic is notable and the list's criteria is not overly broad or narrow, then a list is permitted. And seeing how easy it is to find reviews for the series. In fact, these two reviews deals with point D that you gave. --Farix (Talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a legitimate spinout article to keep the main one from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 4 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) 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cesarczyk

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

Non-notable academic, no citation record, extremely thin news coverage (two hits), references currently only to his own faculty bio page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two News hits seem to be mere entries in a list of upcoming recitals. Abductive (reasoning) 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musicians may care to comment. Other than that Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I put the prod on this article, which was contested by an editor who asserted notability. I requested a rationale for this notability, but got no response. 99of9 (talk) 06:22, 8 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) Erik9 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symfony

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

This product appears to be non-notable. While there is non-trivial coverage of it, it all appears to be in sources that are either not reliable, not independent, or neither. ^Bongo_matic 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory search of Google books for "Symfony" [21] turns up significant coverage in numerous published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the ones that have significant coverage of this Symfony are not independent of the subject. They are written by the developers. ^Bongo_matic 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found plenty of books that give adequate coverage to the framework (which is what this article is about). I'm not confusing this with the Symfony CMS. The book The Definitive Guide to Symfony [22] ISBN 1590597869 meets WP:RS. I even find mention of the Symfony framework in quite a number of O'Reilly books such as Adding Ajax [23] ISBN 0596529368 which given their editorial process, means this subject is more than notable. Put simply, I find nothing to indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the coverage in reliable sources is either:

insignificant, as in the O'Reilly book you mentioned; or
in sources not independent of the subject, as in The Definitive Guide to Symfony, which is co-written by the director of the Symfony project and a former developer of the project, according to the project website.

So, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, despite there being both (a) significant coverage in non-independent reliable sources; and (b) insignificant coverage in independent reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 02:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that assessment at all. The reliable sources guideline states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". While The Definitive Guide to Symfony is not a self-published book (published by Apress), Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources also states: "When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Considering all the other books I continue to find via Google Books, I see nothing at all that would indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about WP:RS. This is about WP:GNG, which defines, for the purpose of establishing notability, "independent" as:

exclud[ing] works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

It goes on to note that:

Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them [Bongo's note: such as the chief product developers], are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.

As pointed out above, I am not contesting the reliability of the sources in which the product is given significant coverage, nor am I suggesting that they are "self-published" in a technical sense. "Produced" is a much broader concept and is covered by authorship, so the sources are not "independent" as the term is used in the notability guideline. ^Bongo_matic 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above and as can be clearly checked by others [24] there are a large number of books in Google Books that cover this subject. The The Definitive Guide to Symfony book isn't being used to establish notability (although IMO it certainly could be used that way). At present the book is listed in the Further reading section of the article. If you think the article needs improvements to its references, a {{refimprove}} template might have been a better approach than this AfD. Even Google Scholar [25] turns up quite a bit of information and journals that have covered this subject. Your continued assertion that this subject just isn't notable does not hold water when this subject has been covered in depth by so many published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:01, 28 August 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) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing noteworthy about this project online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.36.114 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Or delete articles on every other PHP framework (CakePHP, CodeIgniter etc.) as well, with the possible exception of Zend Framework. I am frankly stunned that someone considers Symfony not "noteworthy" enough. It is an extremely well known PHP framework, as any web programmer would tell you. It's pretty much my means for making a living at the moment. What kind of "non-trivial coverage" do you need? It's a web framework. It just quetly works and powers websites. They typically don't write "Powered by Symfony" in big letters, but it's there alright. There are perfectly adequate reference manuals and books on it. Okay, I know "reference manuals" and "any web programmer" are not reliable sources, but come on, people, have some common sense! There are FAR more genuinely non-notable OSS projects which have Wikipedia articles on them. I have been using Wikipedia since 2003, and this is literally the first time I find myself disagreeing with its deletion policy. 77.223.72.46 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC) — 77.223.72.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Of course Symfony is notable. By a cursory search, it was a finalist in the SourceForge's Annual Community Choice Awards '09. Here's a SitePoint article about it. A book by independent authors (AFAICS) will be coming out soon. It's a silly nomination, especially if you're familiar with the world of PHP. Symfony is one of the most notable frameworks there are. Reinis^talk 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just for good measure, here are some more books: 2 books in Japanese: symfony×PHP and symfony徹底攻略, also 1 book in Japanese that compares the most well-known PHP frameworks PHPフレームワーク入門—CakePHP/Zend Framework/symfony/CodeIgniter対応, and 1 German book Das Symfony Framework: Enterprise Anwendungen mit PHP. Oh, by the way, symfony is used by some of the most well-known web companies like Yahoo! (Yahoo! Bookmarks, Yahoo! Answers, and delicious.com). They have even acknowledged their usage of symfony for more than 3 years (see http://www.ysearchblog.com/2006/11/08/under-the-covers-and-across-the-pond-with-yahoo-bookmarks/ for instance). You can also find a lot of presentations of symfony made by Yahoo! evangelists. Also, it it can help, just have a look at the number of jobs requiring symfony knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.192.205.147 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — 61.192.205.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I'm completely shocking. I'm been using Symfony for 2 years, there's a plenty of information about it in the web, and it almost as known as any other framework. Moreover, Symfony is an open source project. If you think that Symfony is irrelevant, you must think that other articles about small or only-for-experts open source projects should be deleted. It's crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.38.34 (talk) 14:52, 9 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Newman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J Newman

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

Article asserts no notability. Subject fails wp:prof, having only written a few papers. Article's references are poor. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believe Dr. Newman books have been cited enough by reliable – 3rd party – independent – creditable sources as shown here [26], to establish notability under our academics guidelines. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you read wp:prof you will see that being cited by others is not, by itself, a criteria for establishing notability. Criteria 1 states that the subject must have made a significant impact in their field, and I dont believe being cited 26 times really qualifies. Bonewah (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it is more than 26 times. In fact, in jut one, it is showing as 28. However, either way, if you note the pieces Dr. Newman has been cited in, and continue to look at where those particular pieces are cited, I believe it establishes a case for inclusion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book that is cited a paltry 28 times is not authored by Newman (I'm unsure why it pops up, because searching in the book for "newman" does not find any references to him). Of his own works, the most cited seems to be a 2000 book with just 10 citations. To qualify for WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, many hundreds of citations are needed, not just a few hundred. --Crusio (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Top GS cites are 10, 6, 4 ..... Clearly inadequate for WP:Prof #1 as noted above. Cite patterns in this field could be significant. Input from Islamic scholars is desirable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep GS is irrelevant in a field like this, where three separate factors coincide: 1/ the book-oriented humanities do not give rise to significant numbers of citations, 2/ religion, and especially islamic religion, is a particularly isolated field, 3/ citations are likely to be from nonenglish sources, which GS almost totally omits. . Looking at the CV, the books edited as well as the two he wrote, and the journals articles, I conclude he is an authority in his specialty. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not !vote "delete" based on the very low citation counts because I am unfamiliar with this field and kind of suspected what DGG now confirms. Notability established based on other accomplishments than citations. --Crusio (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG didnt actually establish notability, he merely established that GS might not be the best way to judge this person's notability. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your absolutely right - However, he did established Mr. Newman was an authority in his specialty, there by worthy for inclusion under creative professional. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I disagree. He may well be an authority in his specialty, but that still doesnt satisfy wp:prof, in my opinion. Any professor will likely have several published works, and, one would hope, be an authority in whatever speciality he or she has chosen. This is why wp:prof was written, in my opinion, to advise us to only write articles about those who stand out, those who have done more than the typical professor. My opinion anyway. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fully agree with Bonewah's comment above. Also, based on my (significant) experience with non-english sources, I haven't found any evidence that GS systematically omits them. They just usually don't show up at the top, because they are less cited themselves (because they are not written in scientific lingua franca), but show up in the count anyway. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was not aware that Google Scholar has anything like the coverage in Persian or Arabic (the most likely non-English languages that would have coverage of the subject) that it does in English. Could you provide some evidence from your significant experience that these languages are covered? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, I claimed that the experience was significant, not all-encompassing :) --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. If we are going to decide that WP:PROF#1 is satisfied based on non-english sources, do we have any evidence of Persian or Arabic citations of his work? I'm asking because I think that Wikipedia policy is that someone is non-notable unless shown otherwise, not the other way around. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may be an authority in his speciality, but we have no evidence that he is. Thanks to CronopioFlotante for the reminder that Notability requires verifiable evidence to justify inclusion, and I believe previous contributors to this discussion already have made a reasonable good-faith search for such evidence. WorldCat Identities' results say his two authored books are held by 185 and 120 of the libraries they cover, while the two he's edited are in 124 and 6 libraries. This is nowhere near the level (nine books, most widely held in 809 & 639 libraries) shown by Cheryl Rubenberg, another scholar of the Middle-East, whose recent AfD generated much discussion.

Without such evidence, what can we say about him? No more than his university homepage, which bears a strong enough resemblance to the current wikipedia article to raise questions of copyright violation. The current article is entirely reliant on this single first-party source. Surely that goes against the whole purpose of the Notability Guidelines. Qwfp (talk) 11:45, 2 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) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Qwfp. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —NW (Talk) 22:01, 3 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) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Xero Wrestling

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

Non-notable local promotion company. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The inclusion in Pro Wrestling Illustrated seems to be giving some depth to the notability claim, but I was unable to find a reference to this organization in PWI's pages. More sources need to be provided. If they can be presented, I'll be more than happy to suggest a keep, but at the moment I don't think I have a reason to. McMarcoP (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be helpful if this claimed reference could be verified in the print edition. Even with that though, additional references in 3rd party sources would be necessary to bring this topic up to notability standards.--RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PWI rankings appeared in the double issue featuring Tara/Victoria on the cover. I will try to find the exact month/issue. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009

Comment GXW has as many or more article under Google news as other promotions with articles including Ultimate Pro Wrestling, World League Wrestling, United Wrestling Federation, Empire Wrestling Federation, Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009

Comment I'm not following you. Are you saying that the company is referred to as GWX in news coverage and thats why its difficult to find? Could you provide some links to these articles? Better yet, improve the article with citations to these articles.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI was trying to create a point that a Google News search might not be relevant in this case since low to no hits. The some that do usually only refer to a person associated with the promotion googled, not the promotion itselfPatricksu (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2009

CommentWhen you ask for sources, do you want specific newspaper, TV, and books or will blogs and chat room stuff do? Patricksu (talk) 2:38, 28 August 2009

Comment I'm afraid that blogs and chat rooms wouldn't be enough, anyone can fake them (not that I am implying that you are faking them or would do so). Newspapers and books (online editions are easier to verify, as you can understand) would be much more helpful to your claim. McMarcoP (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [edited to fix my own mistype McMarcoP (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Comment No, blogs and message boards are not reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'right, same thing I meant myself, tried to avoid being negative and maybe I was a bit confusing. McMarcoP (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources, let me know which would count as "acceptable" Patricksu (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009

Comment none of these appear to be very reliable sources. I'm no wrestling expert but these appear to be blogs or produced by the company itself. Hasn't there been any press coverage? There are dozens of wrestling magazines on the newstands, haven't any of them written about this company?--RadioFan (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment, but delete, per nom: lack of coverage to pass WP:GNG. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:23, 30 August 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) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sources are limited and questionable. No mainstream coverage and nothing else to make it notable. !! Justa Punk !! 00:19, 4 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 Carolina–Clemson rivalry. Tone 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Catch (college football)

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

No references, and no indication that this is notable outside Clemson fan base. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it was all that significant to American college football in general. Granted it was a big deal to those who saw it and in that year of a college rivalry. Reliable sources lacking to show how it was of long-term importance to the football programs of either competitor in the game. Edison (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not weighing in yet, but found this [27] cache version of now-not-free article about this event; I added ref to article. If this article is not kept, content should probably go into Carolina-Clemson_Rivalry --Milowent (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further reflection, I'd go with Merge --Milowent (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, didn't look for sources myself, but with the added ref I see no reason to delete.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Only sense of notability I see is in the context of the rivalry and/or as an important event in the history of the team, not on its own or within "college sports" or other general topic. Also something of a WP:NEO or local jargon--ref specifically identifies the term's usage as "in Clemson lore". DMacks (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carolina-Clemson Rivalry. There is already a reference to "The Catch" in that article that has stood the test of time. It is certainly notable in the context of that rivalry, but I question the value of having a separate article when anyone looking for information on it would probably start with the rivalry article first, right?--CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 21:27, 8 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. WP:SNOW JForget 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bierrum Effect

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

This is a hoax, to my mind blatant enough for WP:CSD#G3, but it has lurked here for a regrettably long time (much credit to User:Malcolma who has just tagged it); it was speedied, but unfortunately mis-tagged as nonsense; then PRODed and the PROD removed, so we have to bring it here. Merely reading it should have set alarm bells ringing, but just to confirm: Google Scholar knows nothing of the Bierrum effect or Exanimus Alo-somnia or Pyga Pactum Inflatio Virus or of any papers by Professor A N Dalusian (whose name alone gives this away). There is nothing relevant in Google - most of the articles that turn up do not actually mention it, and the rest are WP mirrors. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Verifiability, as a hoax will. Edison (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be hoax Chzz ► 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:20, 5 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Edson

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

Non-notable person. Prod denied by author based on this person's award of a Silver Star which, while laudable, does not necessarily rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This person is notable as I pointed out, he was awarded the Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation. In your own words; "This person's award of a Silver Star which, while laudable does not necessarily rise to the lever of notability required by Wikipedia. Another definition of laudable is "Notable".

I have seen countless articles about the 101 Airborne Division (Band of Brothers). Edson was awarded more decorations than most of those honorable men. I do not see why those articles are not up for deletion? Is it because hollywood made a movie about the "Band of Brothers?" is that why they are so notable? I will then say that in support of Mr. Edson his division was also depicted in two Hollywood movies. Patton (1971) and if fact Band of Brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that the accomplishments of our servicemen, past and present who served in combat, were decorated with medals of valor during combat, are not considered “Notable”. Unless of course Hollywood makes a movie about them, then they are considered notable. Do you not find that odd? Of all the men in Easy Company (Band of Brothers), only two were awarded the Silver Star. Those pages are not proposed for deletion, because Hollywood made a movie.

So the point here is that Hollywood decides what is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but am leaning Delete: I am going to make an educated guess that a grandchild of Mr. Edson wrote this article (Palmisano007). While this article is awesome from a family geneology standpoint, and took lots of effort, I'm not seeing how Mr. Edson is 'notable' enough in terms of wikipedia's standards. He was no doubt a fine man of the Greatest Generation. I suggest the author create a free blog via blogspot or something like that if s/he wants to get the family history online - google will still find it. If you think there are other articles like this on Wikipedia that normally survive deletion review, please give me some links so I can look. I have ancestors who served in WWII as well, but I never considered that they merited a page here. His division may well deserve an article if it doesn't have one. --Milowent (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep itYou may have ancestors who served during the second world war. But did were they awarded the Silver Star and/or Presidential Unit Citation? I gather not, which does not lesson thier service. I suggest before you opt for deletion you first invest a little time to read about how important and how HARD and NOTABLE it is to be awarded a Silver Star or Presidential Unit Citation. They don't just give them away. It takes heroic achievment and i'm not making that up. Who decided that a person's heroic are not worthy or notable. Have people forgotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you mean List_of_Easy_Company_(506_PIR)_veterans - lots of these guys have pages. Hmmm. --Milowent (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete The article needs work but as mentioned a lots of these guys have pages List_of_Easy_Company_(506_PIR)_veterans, this is an interesting one if we delete this one we should be deleting all of those ones too... RP459 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep it, if you don't then delete the Band of Brothers soldiers. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:Other stuff exists. Simply because there are other articles about non-notable people, this is not an argument to keep this article. It is perhaps true that the articles on the Band of Brothers soldiers might be worthy of deletion (except that there is at least one reliable independent source for those articles), but that is not the issue here. This discussion is about Thomas A. Edson, nothing else. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It. Regardless of the fact that this article is mostly about an individual, the historical facts are those, facts. There is not a large amount of personal information about Edson listed, and what there is is not objectable. How many books or other articles are written about individuals who served during that time (or others)? It appears that the original posting and reason for suggesting deletion is that the writer felt that Edson was not notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. I strongly disagree. Any person who serves in the military is notable - they have fought for their country. How do musicians, comedians, athletes, entertainers rate as being a standard find on Wikipedia and not a serviceman (Brittany Spears or Dane Cook...notable??). The fact that Edson was awarded a Silver Star is notable. As Wikipedia itself states: "It is also the third highest award given for valor (in the face of the enemy)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star). I'm not sure I understand how someone who received such a high decoration would not be considered notable by Wikipedia??? Is WikiDan61 looking for another source to verify that these events occured? I would recommend searching any site for the battles listed and that verification will be given. As to why Edson was awarded the medals and citations, I can assume that this would be interesting to anyone searching for him, WWII veterans, or medal receipients... I know it was to me. [(User:Abby0505)] — Abby0505 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia has guidelines for what articles should be included and what articles should not. These guidelines do not include the blanket statement "servicemen are notable". I don't argue that any serviceman or woman has done more for this world than all the Brittany Spears put together, but that is not the criteria the Wikipedia uses. If you feel that it should use those criteria, you are free to suggest that at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. However, until those guidelines have been changed, articles must meet the guidelines that currently exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

It is my belief that Edson was worthy of notice and his actions during WWII were "significant" He is qualified for an article based on his Distinguished Service. He was significant because he was awarded the Silver Star and PUC. Not many people during the war where award those medals singularly or both as he did. My article fits the definition of Notability on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, notability is not based on fame or popularity, but it is based on independent reliable sources. While there are many sources to verify the notability of Edson's unit, no sources have been provided to demonstrate that Edson himself was notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without independent, reliable sources about the subject of the article, I had to look to see if receiving the silver star itself could make someone notable. The page on the silver star, however, says that between 100,000 and 150,000 have been awarded and that seems like a large number to confer notability to someone. Rnb (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many baseball players have there been in history? How many nascar drivers, basketball players, movie actors? Well over 150,000, but each one is determined to be notable and entitled to their wiki page if somebody makes one. Edson served his country with distinction and saved the life of another person. But that is not notable enough? As far as independant and "Reliable Sources" contact the United States Army and you can confirm that Edson was awarded the Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation. You can also confirm that Edson saved the life of another soldier which is why he was awareded the silver star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that would help meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rnb (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that the Silver Star was awarded, or the PUC. But the other awardees of the Silver Star who have articles are also notable for other things - perhaps receiving higher awards, or multiple silver stars, or they were notable politicians, soldiers, etc for other reasons. Although obviously a brave man, being awarded the Silver Star (I am ignoring the PUC, as this was not awarded to Edson himself, but to the entire unit) is not in itself sufficient to be counted as notable on Wikipedia. There are other websites (including other wikis) where he can easily be included - you could even develop your own website to put this information on. However, I do not feel that Wikipedia is the correct place for this article, according to the criteria that we use. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have several books about the 10th Armored Division and everyone references Corporal Thomas Edson in the General Orders and Orders of Battle as recieving the Silver Star and Why. They also reference him getting wounded in combat and recieving the Purple Heart. At the close of the article I reference each of those books. Upon his return to Vermont after the war article were written in the newspapers about him. What more is needed? What sources are there for the boys of the Easy Company, 506 PIR of the 101 Airborne? A hollywood movie? That's credible and as I pointed out, you are not going to delete their pages. I'm not saying you should either, but if you will not propose deletion for them, you should not propose deletion for a man who recieved more decorations and a more important decoration of valor than a majority of E Company, 506 PIR of the 101 Airborne. Have some consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As another note I have three books referenced in my article. I have been working on proping citing them and have bee working on that. This is new to me. Those three books fall within the wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It comes down to verifiability and consistency. None of the information about Edson is sourced. Further, the article contradicts itself, even in some basic places (intro shows he's alive, later text implies he died in 1994). There are stylistic concerns - were the article to stay, at least half of the text would need cut, since it's only tangentially about Edson and better covered in the article about his unit. However, the underlying verification issue is what warrants deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid. Although winning the Silver Star is laudable, I'm afraid it doesn't meet general wikipedia notability guidelines, nor the Military History Wikiproject's own notability guidelines for service personnel. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notability guidline is currently at the level of only a country's top miitary honour automatically conferring notability. Much of the infomration in the article belongs more in the unit articles, rather than in an article on an individual. None of the sources cited focuses on Edson, unlike the men of the Band of Brothers where we have good sourcing. Yes it's unfair, but that's life I'm afraid. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that my article needs more work. I am happy to oblidge and delete any content that does not fit. This was my first article and I know I made several mistake that I planned on correcting. I was also hoping that once posted it would be edited by other people. However its just proposed for deletion instead of assistance on making it better. However I venomously disagree that he was not notable. I also ask what sources so you have about the Band of Brothers? A movie? Some books? Hollywood is never a good source of reliability. Band of Brothers was made to make money and nothing else. I've Again Edson is specifically listed in each book under General Orders and Battle Orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Company, 506th PIR is, indeed, an unusual case, in which a book by Stephen Ambrose and a subsequent mini-series conferred notability on the unit in question, when otherwise it wouldn't have been notable. However, they are notable, particularly since a number of books have been penned on the individuals in the company, who would not otherwise have been notable. However, Edison is not a member of such a unit and does not as such meet notability guidelines, nor does his extremely laudable achievement in winning a Silver Star confer notability either; only those winning their nation's highest award, such as the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor achieve notability (in terms of winning awards). Although Edison may well be presented in your sources, this does not make him notable per our guidelines. I'm very sorry that this is the case, and it is in no way a slur on your writing skills. I would echo other suggestions made above and create a webpage independent of wikipedia to display this biography. Skinny87 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed in other postings for this article to propose its deletion. In not one does it address the hundreds of other pages that belong to non-notable people or topics that have not been deleted. It appears that this article has been targeted for deletion by prejudice. The author explains that several sources cite Edson receiving this medal, including that there was a newspaper article written about his service and return to his home state. I would encourage Wikipedia to keep this article and allow the author to cite additional references specifically identifying Edson as the notable person he appears to have been before deciding to delete it. I would also strongly suggest that those posting to delete this article provide further explanation other than "he was not notable" or "sources have not been cited." Do we not all strive to create our best work and look to others to assist us in learning? Having used Wikipedia on numerous occassions to search for a variety of topics, I can honestly write that I have seen many pages that made not sense either in grammer, topic, or notability. I have always viewed Wikipedia as a venue for finding any and all information about, simply everything. These postings have shown me how the process can work to delete pages that should be kept, so perhaps I will begin looking more closely at the pages I "skim" over that may not meet my search criteria and propose those for deletion. I think that notability can be argued in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abby0505 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're disappointed, but it has now been pointed out to you by multiple editors that the article does not meet notability standards for en.wikipedia, and the existence of other, possibly non-notable articles on wikipedia does not justify this article existing. I can't really see how else to explain this to you and your associaties (if that is what they are). The wikipedia notability guidelines have been in place for quite some time now, and have achieved consensus here on en.wikipedia. I would also point out that, should you choose to nominate any articles for deletion, you should first read up on the deletion guidelines as well as those for notability before maiking possibly pointy propositions.

I believe Edson fits the notability standard. As far as my article I will make any adjustments needed to reach the wiki standard. I would have referenced better but I had not figured out how to do it yet. As I said, this was/is my first article. I do not understand what has happened. In 1945 gettting awarded a Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation was BIG and NOTABLE. But 70 years later all is forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm afraid, as I've stated multiple times, he doesn't. Winning the Silver Star does not make him notable by our guidelines, and a Presidential Unit Citation is not awarded to an individual, but an entire unit - and it does not confer notability upon an individual anyway. Please, please read the notability guidelnes you have been linked to numerous times for further information

To give some further information, I'm citing the Military History Wikiproject's Notability guidelines, found here. It states that "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note that it states 'presumed' and is therefore not always notable, and that it also states that notability requires 'significant coverage' in reliable sources. Whilst the books cited are indeed reliable sources, it is doubtful that Edison is given 'significant coverage' in them as a Silver Star winner - as some 100-150,000 such awards have been awarded in the US Army's history. Neither does Edison fall under the MilHist 'sufficient coverage' guidelines, as Edison is neither a 'Recipient[s] of a country's highest military decoration', 'People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat', 'Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff)' or 'People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works'. In terms of the general notability guideline, Edison would not be notable because he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly since he only (and I say that with absolutely no disrespect intended) won the Silver Star and was in a unit that recieved a Presidential Unit Citation. I hope that this clears up your remaining arguments over notability, although I am of course not the be-all or end-all of notability. For further debate, I would suggest going to wikipedia's Military History wikiproject at WT:MILHIST and enquiring there. Skinny87 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki 16 million men and women served in the U.S. forces during WWII. According to Wiki between 100,000-150,000 service personnel were awarded the medal since created in 1918. For arguments sake I will assume that all 150,000 Silver Star were awarded during WWII. That means that LESS than 1% of ALL U.S. servicemen were awarded the medal. I fail to see how that does not meet the criteria and yes, I have read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as it stands at the moment, they don't qualify. I've put the question to the Military History Wikiproject to see what consensus is, and you're welcome to partake in that debate, and also to suggest a new notability guideline that would allow those who have won the Silver Star (and other similar awards) to become notable. But as it is, Edison is not notable. And please sign your name when you post - it makes posting by others more difficult when the signbot has to edit as well, causing editconflicts. Skinny87 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I am fighting an uphill battle that I will never win. I know that nobody in this discussion is attempting to negate or lessen the achievements of Edson during WWII. I appreciate the guarded qualifications by several of you who called his achievement laudable. I have printed off a copy in preparation for deletion. Thank you all for your thoughts on this matter, but I totally disagree with the deletion of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank-you for being reasonable, and once again I'm sorry Mr Edison isn't notable. Perhaps he might be one day in the future, but that will be for WP:MILHIST and the rest of the community to decide. Why don't you join the wikiproject - I'm sure there are any number of other articles you could help write and edit with some help! Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite but I believe I’m going to retire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading on wiki policy it mentions that an article can be merged with another. Can Edson's article be merged with the 10th Armored Division article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.222.200.70 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am entering this fray late in the game. I too do not understand the issue of "notable" but it appears the argument has already been lost and dwelling on it will not change the result. My comment is to Skinny87. If you are charged with editing articles and choosing which are doomed, perhaps you should begin by editing your own work more carefully. The subject of the article which is set for deletion is "Thomas A. Edson". Throughout your comments, and I have read them all, you incorrectly refer to him as "Edison". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.193.72 (talk • contribs)

Skinny87 (talk · contribs) is no more "charged with choosing which articles are doomed" than any other Wikipedia editor. That's why we have these AfD discussions: to reach consensus so that no one person can "own" Wikipedia. People make mistakes, even experienced editors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm sorry about that - a slip on my part, and I do apologize. But as WikiDan has said, I'm in no way 'in control' of this process. I'm just one editor who has made an argument which is nothing personal, and should consensus turn against that argument I would be happy to follow it. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surely a notable person in the dictionary sense of "worthy of note", but not a notable person per Wikipedia's sense of the word. However, after deletion, recreate as redirect to Thomas Edison: his middle name was Alva, so this is an easy typo for Thomas A. Edison. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87, make no mistake; my decision to end the defense of the Edson article should not be construed as seeing your point of view. I don’t see it and you and others are wrong. But I see the truth in the fact that I will never win, no matter what I say. I had every intent about being diplomatic about it. In my arguments I stated I will make any corrections necessary to come into compliance for references. Not one person offered to assist me in that task. Instead it was, delete, delete, delete. It’s unfortunate that the sacrifices and accomplishments of a generation long ago are looked at with such detachment. If it was not for this detachment then his notability would be recognized without hesitation. Simple fact is, Edson was born without the golden spoon. He did not have the advantages of people like Patton, Ike or Omar. He was not afforded the opportunity to attend college and get a military command. He was born into a poor family of twelve in the small state of Vermont. To make matters worse BOTH of his parents passed away before he was in Jr. High. Social services at that point in history did not exist, Edson and his siblings were left to their own device. He travelled to Detroit to get a job in a sheet metal factory. When war broke out he enlisted and did his part. When a fellow soldier was in need, he risked his own life to pull him out of a burning tank, dragging the unconscious man over 100 yards to safety. While under enemy fire. He could have turned and ran but he did not. He may have been left behind as a youth but he was not going to leave anybody behind when it was his turn. When wounded in combat he received another medal and the right to return to the front. (I can’t forget the twelve dollars a month in disability he received too) The twelve dollars paid by the US Army was to assist his living standard because after all, he came out of the army with a limp and steal in his body from his own exploding tank. Its funny they never took it out.

So continued to write and approve articles about Scottish Playwrights and Brittney Spears. God knows their accomplishments did more to quash oppression and make the world a safer place. Even if briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I realize that you're upset by this decision and are taking it personally, and for some reason are focusing on me for some reason (perhaps, ironically, because I took the time to explain why the article was nominated for deletion in some detail) but that doesn't give you the right to launch into a sanctimonious speech against me. I don't edit articles about Scottish Playrights or Britney Spears (that's rather a randon selection, although nothing wrong with editing them) but I'll tell you which articles I do edit - articles related to airborne warfare and the brave men who fought and died as part of those formations. Men like Major-General Eric Bols who led the 6th Airborne Division during Operation Varsity, the airborne operation over the Rhine in March 1945. Or men like Major General George F. Hopkinson, a pioneer of airborne warfare who was killed in Italy in 1943 after getting too close to a machine-gun nest. And I write about many of the airborne operations that took place during the Second World War, in which who knows how many men died to 'quash oppression and make the world a safer place' as you put it.

My point with the above is that I can get just as sanctimonious as you, and get into a lather, but I don't want to. Please, don't take this deletion personally just because en.wikipedia decided Mr Edson wasn't notable for this website. That doesn't diminish his accomplishments at all - it just means that by our standards, he doesn't merit an individual article. That's because, as I've said, there aren't sufficient reliable sources to create an article, and because he didn't meet our notability standards. In fact, a fellow editor in the MilHist wikiproject made an excellent point; if we did allow individuals such as Mr Edison to be notable and have articles, most of them would be little more than copy and pasted info from an official website, where they are already honoured, with no more information possible; we'd just be duplicating information. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone else has said above, there have been more than 100,000 Silver Stars awarded - and although getting a Presidential Unit Citation is impressive for a unit, the award is precisely that... one given to an entire unit, not to an individual. Although no doubt a brave and honourable man, there is insufficient indication of Mr Edson's notability in his own right. His citation for the Silver Star, which I personally think shows great bravery, is not so unusual - many hundreds of people have received Silver Stars for similar acts. However, many soldiers received more than one (the person to receive the most is Colonel David Hackworth who received 10). I stand willing to be convinced that this brave man is more notable than the thousands of others who were in his unit (so getting the PUC), who received silver stars and the other medals he did. However, what I see in the article does not convince me yet. I would suggest userfying it, but the creator has a copy of a previous version already at User:Palmisano007/Thomas Edson. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel David Hackworth was beyond notable, he was absolutely remarkable. But does that mean that all others are nothing compared to him? Can it not be considered that he is an example of the pinnacle of notability and Edson meets the first standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87 The scottish playwright comment was not direct towards you, but the person who proposed deletion in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a veteran myself, who served in combat and has received awards from my commanders I think the issue is that the author of this article is unfortunately taking the description of "not notable" personally. It's not a personal affront and in no way means that Mr. Edison was not honorable and heroic. (It's obvious that he was)... "Notable" in terms of Wikipedia asks the questions: - were his accomplishments noted in publications that reached thousands of people? Was his personal story the subject of a book, a film, or a variety of newspaper articles? Without citation there is no verification that such is the case, and if it's not the case then his accomplishments are not grounds (alone) for notability (as defined by Wikipedia). While I feel strongly that he is deserving of respect, I do not believe that he should be included in Wikipedia. There are thousands of soldiers who died in WWII, who, all told, earned many thousands of medals, honors and awards. There are many more who survived and earned awards and medals of every description. There are soldiers from wars pre and post WWII that could make the same claim. That being said, the personal story of each of those people is not notable unless it was noted by periodicals, books, or news organizations for being ground changing or a watershed moment. If Wikipedia began the business of approving articles on soldiers who performed heroically, regardless of whether or not they were "notable", there would be little room for anything else. It's not a personal attack. It's not meant to diminish Mr. Edison's achievements. It's a matter of remaining true to the content guidelines of Wikipedia.Etrangere (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our WP:BIO policy - I suggest the editor copies the content so he can put it on a blog or family history site as it's a nice bit of family history (for the family that is). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO not met. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have the utmost respect for Mr. Edson and his war record, I firmly believe that each military biography should be individually assessed against the criteria for inclusion 1) Are there significant non-trival sources about the person - if yes then they are almost certainly notable - indeed this is what makes them notable by wikipedia's definition. (This is the one that allows the Band of Brothers soldiers to have articles, although I personally believe that many of those could also do with a run through Afd) 2) Did they hold a position of authority or influence in their branch of service, i.e. a position that was notable across that branch of service 3) Were they the recipient of the highest medal for valour (and only the highest) available to them 4) Is there any other criteria that might apply that raises them to prominence above the ordinary soldier.

As an inclusionist on general principles I attempt to see notability in all subjects, but I am afraid that to my mind Mr. Edson does not meet any of the above criteria and that therefore, with regret, this article should be deleted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 10th Armored Division (United States) It kills me to vote delete, but there does not appear to be a single substancial independent source which actually discusses Mr. Edson's life. The sources in the article all prove that the 10th Armored Division is notable, just not this one soldier in said division. In fact, much of this excellently written content could be reorganzied slightly, and used to expand and improve the 10th Armored Division (United States) article, since lots of it is about the division rather than the soldier himself. I would have voted delete, but per WP:PRESERVE, I think that there is some good content here which could be repurposed elsewhere, even if the subject himself is clearly not notable per WP:BIO. --Jayron32 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. As Cameron Scott suggests, this should make great material for a personal site for family history, but not a worldwide encyclopedia. Shanata (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what i'm going to do is create an online source for all veterans and their families to post biographies. Hometown heroes is nice but I think it lacks the ability for vets/families to tell the story. It is important for people to read and be informed about the dedication and heroic of our veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, any relevant material to 10th Armored Division (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 03:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The man won a silver star, an award he shares with many noted men and women who have earned that very distinct honor. That’s notable enough for me. Also, if the essential predicate for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject be notable, then should we not take account of the following:

“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]

This is an encyclopedia with unlimited space. Inclusion on Wikipedia of a small article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about a soldier who was awarded a significant number of awards including and especially a silver star and a presidential citation — all of which is verifiable via a Google search — surely does not run contrary to the intention of Wikipedia nor is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the guideline for biographic notability states that the concept of notability “is distinct from ‘fame’, ‘importance’, or ‘popularity’, although these may positively correlate with notability.” [Emphasis added.] Finally, I cannot find anything from a cursory examination of the Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons that automatically and clearly cries out for the exclusion of this article. I vote to keep. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject Military History Biography criteria, linked above, state that only winning a nation's highest award is automatically notable, not winning a slightly lesser medal like the Silver Star/Military Medal, and this consensus seems to have been supported by a discussion on the project's talkpage here. Between 100-150,000 members of the US Armed Forces have won the Silver Star, and numerous units have been awarded a PUC, and the latter is awarded to a unit, not an individual. One user in the linked discussion on WT:MILHIST makes an excellent point - if we allow these individuals to have an article, then they would be little more than copy and pasted articles with their name, unit and perhaps an official citation; since they are rarely focused on in reliable sources (unlike Victoria Cross & Medal of Honor winners) then these articles would be little better than stubs which could be just as easily found on an official site. There would also be hundreds of thousands of them - perhaps even millions when we consider the Silver Star-level medals awarded by all militaries around the world - and given that many of the recipients would still be living, they would be a WP:BLP nightmare. Who would maintain all of these perma-stubs to make sure they aren't vandalized? Wiki has enough of a problem with BLP isses at the moment, without adding potentially more than a million more articles which could never be expanded with WP:Reliable Sources. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that all of the Silver Star winner's highlighted in your first link, Spike Toronto, were notable for other reasons than winning a Silver Star - being a member of the American government, commanding a ship during a notable misson or accident, or becoming a command-level officer. Unfortunately, Mr Edson did none of these things, even though winning the Silver Star is, of course, extremely commendable and took considerably bravery. Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the relevant notability policy (WP:BIO) notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources on a person. This article has no sources at all about Mr Edson other than one website in which his name appears on a list of people awarded the Silver Star. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as has been pointed out above, no matter how worthy an individual or their achievements, notability in Wikipedia terms means "enough substantial coverage in independent, fact-checked, reliable sources that we can write a well-sourced article". Where the source material doesn't exist, Wikipedia can't be the place to establish that notability. EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Notable, notable, notable. Everyone obsesses about notable. The founder of this very encyclopedia, that the exclusionists in our midsts so want to protect by deleting properly sourced and neutrally written articles, says that verifiablity and neutral point of view are more important than notability. And, I hate to break it to the younger generation, but there are more sources than just what one can find on the internet via Google. The search engine test is a mere first step, as it were. Thus, there is more to verifiability than what one can find electronically. I also don’t trust the search methodology of someone whose search does not involve war records, etc., in trying to assess WP:V. Finally, and I’m a little confused about this: Is the space occupied by Mr. Edson’s article needed for something else? Has Wikipedia hit some heretofore unknown size limit? The whole reason Wales did not want a focus on notability, notability, notability, is that it is not expansive, it is not inclusionary. Let us be expansive and inclusionary and live up to his vision of this project. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SpikeToronto, a response to your comment:

Jimbo Wales is not god... he has an opinion, and indeed NPOV and verifiability are important, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that notability is a criteria for inclusion.
I agree that the Internet is not the only source of information (note that I said the Internet, not just Google!) - and the article does use books as references - but the books do not have a significant amount of information about Edson, do they?
Server space is not an issue - no one is saying "delete this to save space" - in fact, as even deleted articles are kept (albeit only available for users with sufficient rights to see), the space saved is negligable.
If Mr Wales wants to weigh in on this discussion, then let him speak for himself.

Having re-read the article (for the 4th or 5th time), I am struck again by the fact that this is pretty much about the 10th, not about Edson. There are phrases such as "Edson and the 10th..." throughout the article, and apart from the citation, very little of the article refering to the actions of the 10th are actually about Edson himself, but about the unit. Looking at the article section by section:
- Family and early years: completely about Edson, but unsourced
- World War II: The first paragraph is about Edson (unsourced); the next paragraph (the longest of the section) is not about him, but about his unit; the next section is about Edson - his Silver Star and mention of Purple Heart (but no sources); the final three paragraphs (all very short) are about Edson
- Post-War Life: This paragraph is about Edson (unsourced)
- 10th Armoured Division combat chronicle: This entire section is about the 10th, all mentions of Edson are basically "Edson and his division did this..." - no specific references to what Edson (as opposed to the division) is mentioned
- Casualty statistics of the 10th Armored Division - beyond showing the casualty rate of the Division, I'm not sure what this is doing here
- Photo Gallery: If this article was to remain on Wikipedia, this would be brilliant, as there are several photographs of Edson
- 10th Armored Division on film: No mention of Edson, no reason for it to be in this article
- References:
  - Books: Unfortunately I do not have access to the three books (they aren't available in any of my local libraries), but I'd be surprised if they have much (if any) mention of Edson, as they are about the unit, not individual soldiers (of course, if someone who has access has checked them out, I'm happy to be corrected)
  - Websites: "10th Armored Division web page": The only mentions of Edson are on the forums; "United States Memorial Holocaust Museum": No mentions of Edson
  - Links: None of the websites mention Edson - only the 10th AD, with the exception of the final one which lists him as a Silver Star recipient (although I don't think anyone has doubted this)
In summary, the references given do not verify the article contents about Edson. Although SpikeToronto, and others, would like Wikipedia to be a memorial to every soldier who ever served and got a medal (I presume you are not just including American soldiers? I assume you'd want it for British, Canadian, Danish, Egyptian, French, German, etc etc soldiers) - that is not Wikipedia's purpose. There might well be a wiki out there somewhere formed for this purpose (or perhaps one of the editors who feels that this article should be on Wikipedia could start one!) but I am not looking at any other wikis, just the English Wikipedia, and unless the criteria for notability (and verifiability, which this article also fails) are removed, then this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, no matter how much the editors here feel that Edson was a brave soldier (and I don't see anyone disagreeing with this sentiment).
This is my final comment on the subject of this article, unless someone manages to provide verifiable and reliable references to show the notability of this individual soldier. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the information Specifically regarding the 10th Armored Division. I simply don't know what more I need to do. As far as citations I will work ont aht too as soon as I can figure out how to do that. But I should point out that several Band of Brothers articles are flagged as not having proper citations. As I understand it, the reason why Edson's article needs to be deleted is because Wiki editors are worried about vandalism? I don't understand, would vandalism be something like deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People keep on mentioning that because just because "other stuff exist" it is not an argument. Well read futher:In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid).

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Most of the Easy Company Band of Brothers appear to have articles. Only TWO E Company Soldiers were awarded the Silver Star during WWII. Most of them DID NOT lead a significant number of men or a military unit. To my knowledge no solider in Easy Company was awarded the Medal of Honor. Several of them DO NOT have proper citations either. Be CONSISTENT IN CONTENT. The men of Easy Company (Even the ones who were not awarded the Silver Star are notable. They got their articles, so shouldn’t Edson, who was also notable based on the Silver Star and the fact that he served with a distinguished unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above comments on non-notability. User:Palmisano007 - please discontinue your second-guessing of all the delete comments, you are not doing yourself any favours. ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a discussion where I had the ability to argue my case for notability. Guess I don't, thanks for pointing that out to me ukexpat. Also thanks for pointing out that my continued discussion is doing nothing but causing people vote delete. Here I thought the purpose was for people to judge the article and not the contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not what I said. The reviewing admin will obviously take your comments into account, but making them ad nauseam in response to every "delete" comment does not improve your case. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Palmisano007, this is indeed the place for you to argue the case for notability - but you are basically using the same two arguments from what I can see: (1) He won a Silver Star and was part of a unit that got a PUC; (2) Other articles exist. Using these arguments are not wrong in and of themselves (whether convincing or otherwise) - the problem is that you are using these two arguments over and over. I have responded to both of those arguments, so I won't go into it again. I can't speak for anyone else here, only for myself, but I can assure you that I am judging the article not the contributor. Ukexpat didn't say that you are causing people to vote delete - firstly, this isn't a vote - it's a discussion, where the quality of the arguments used is what will decide the outcome, not how many people said "vote" or "keep". He said that you aren't helping the case by restating the same arguments. I have said a few times that the way to save this article is to find some independent references to Edson (on the websites you cite, for example, none of them mention him, apart from the list of Silver Star recipients, which no one here is disputing he got); the books you site (like the websites) are about the 10AD, not about Edson. Unless you can show that they have significant mentions of Edson (beyond a single mention about the citation for the Silver Star), then they are not suitable to use as references for an article about this individual soldier, although perfect for an article about the 10th AD. Find a source of information that is reliable (ie not a forum, a blog or a family memebr's website) that has significant coverage of Mr Edson - and it doesn't have to be a website, it can be a book with a decent amount of information about him that has been published (rather than self-published) and is available to the general public; or it could be a newspaper article about Edson which is just about him, rather than just a sentence about him... find those, and I'll change my recommendation to delete the article. I looked as intensively as I could, but as I am not in the US, it is harder for me to find books etc which may mention him - I couldn't find any suitable websites. Rather than using the same arguments, help us by finding sources of information which fit the criteria for WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. No one here wants to delete the article for the sake of it, or to annoy you, or anything - but as it stands, it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for WP:NOTABILITY or WP:MILMOS#NOTE -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve; The books, list Edson in the General Orders as recieveing the Silver Star and Purple Heart. The award of the silver star has a description of the events leading up to the award. The books are not about Edson, however most of the 11,000 men of the 10th Armored are listed at all. But as I understand it that is not what you want anyway. You want a book authored by Ambrose, or similar.

When Edson returned home in 1946 an article was written in the Burlington Free Press, Vermont's Largest news paper, addressing that Edson had returned. The article describes that he was wounded in combat and awarded the Silver Star. If that is what you are looking for then I would be glad to add a citation to this article as I have a copy. However you don't and sicne you can't find it online my assumption is you don't want it.

I have a copy of his military record that was reviewed and updated on August 1st, 2009 by the National Archives/US Army. The information for this article was written directly from the information contained within his military record. But as I understand it, that information, although unbiased is not acceptable.

There are other articles about Edson in reference to bowling. Winning some individual tournaments and such. But again you can't find them online. His bowling days concluded about 20 years ago. Besides the fact that Bowling was not what made him notable. My intent in the article was to desribe his notable service to the U.S, not bowling.

It's great that you defend Ukexpat and his comment. But you know as well as I that it was a jab. Now its ad nauseam because I have been attempting to defend my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not have to appear online to be considered reliable sources. If the article is generally available (e.g. in library archives, etc.), than that is sufficient. The significance of the coverage is important though -- if the article was a full column length or more describing Edson's accomplishments in some detail, this might be significant. If it was a paragraph buried deep in the paper that merely welcomes home a local war hero, this probably is not significant (in terms of Wikipedia's definition of "significant coverage"). Similarly, references about Edson's bowling career probably aren't applicable, since the article is about Edson the soldier, not Edson the bowler. The copy of Edson's military record may not be considered a valid source as it is not generally available, and thus the information cannot be independently verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As WikiDan says, sources don't have to be online - as I mentioned on your user talk page, it is the ability for some people in the right part of the world to be able to check (verify) the sources that counts. Your assumption that I wouldn't be interested in a source that I can't check is invalid - I would be quite happy if you provide a source like that, as someone will check it. As WikiDan also says, it's the significance of the coverage that is important - if it's a front-page or close-to-front page, and consists of several paragraphs, it might well be notable. If it's just a single paragraph (which most 'home-welcoming' articles tend to be), then it may not be.

With regard to the Military record, I'm not sure about how that works in the US. Would I be able to pay to get a copy of it, or is it only available to family members? (in the UK, to see my grandfather's details from the second world war, I would have to provide a copy of his death certificate showing that he is dead (otherwise only he can get it, or his wife), and a letter from the next of kin (my mum) saying that she gives permission for his details to be released to me - in this case, I would not be able to use it as a reference, as the general public can't get a copy). If it is not available for the general public, you can't use it as a reference, as it can't be verified. If it is (even if I would have to pay to get a copy), then it can be used.

With regard to the bowling - as both you and WikiDan say, the article isn't about Edson the bowler, but Edson the soldier. The bowling would not help the soldier bit! If he played as a full-time professional (or at the highest level of Amateur play such as the Olympics), then he might be notable in this regard (see WP:ATHLETE) but not as a soldier. Against, it's all down to the significance of the coverage.

Finally, I am not defending Ukexpat (or anyone else) - I am merely explaining what he seems to be saying, as it was something I was thinking of mentioning. I am not here to defend or attack any editor - I am here to improve an encyclopedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the Author: You should add the citation to the 1946 newspaper article, though it seems its not going to change the outcome at this point (I commented very early in the discussion of this article and came back to see this huge scroll-a-thon). If you want me to do it in proper cite format, upload a scan to photobucket or somewhere and shoot me a link via my talk page and I'll do it for what its worth. I still think the article you wrote has great information in it, but its not falling within wikipedia's guidelines per all the discussion above.--Milowent (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a published source specifically about Edson you just are not going to meet notabliliyt requirement for the article. However the 10th Armored Division (United States) article could certainly use some expansion and since there appear to be published sources on the 10th Armored division that mention that Edson was awarded a silver star, mentioning that fact in that article (with a suitable inline reference) would be fine, and that would at least provide some commemoration of his valor.Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:53, 8 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. per clear consensus JForget 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xujia Wang

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

A generally not notable person only mentioned in the news for one event of insider trading (WP:BLP1E). She was not the vice president of Morgan Stanley, but a unit within the company. I find no coverage of her other than the insider trading case, which is better mentioned in the Morgan Stanley article. Apoc2400 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was a vice president. See: [28]. --208.90.100.111 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Ms Wang, a Morgan Stanley vice president..." Tan | 39 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a former vice president in Morgan Stanley's finance department's valuation review group"[29] "vice president in one of the investment bank's transaction support units"[30]. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's how VPs of companies are usually distributed. There can be a dozen VPs of one company, all overseeing one division or another. I dunno how germane this is to the debate, anyway. Tan | 39 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You do realize that large corporations have a multitude of vice-presidents? One white-collar crime conviction without any particular notable role in the larger Morgan Stanley situation does not notable make, especially for a BLP. NTK (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Second NTK's reasoning, and emphasise BLP policy. We'll never find any sources about the rest of this person's life and it's hardly fair or balanced to reduce an entire life to a single incidence of insider trading. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that the court staggered their 18-month sentences so that one parent could be home to care for their baby enhances notability. --CliffC (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Staggered sentences like this are altogether irrelevant to notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no evidence of notability. Factiva gives just 58 results for a search for "Jennifer Xujia Wang". Any notable VP should turn up at least a thousand mentions. Ottre 22:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination, clearly WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 8 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) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.9 Mediaworx Pvt. Ltd.

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

Spammy article about non-notable company WuhWuzDat 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - nothing of note here, not much above the level of a G11 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, I prodded it once, but it appears not to have taken. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Absthebest, the only significant editor, removed the prod template with this edit, giving no edit summary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 3 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 per WP:HEY, with commendation to MythSearcher. Skomorokh 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Century technology

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

After surveying the page and its contents, I don't think it's suitable for inclusion on en.wikipedia, and would suggest transwiki-ing it to a Gundam wiki of some kind. It's a huge, seemingly indiscriminate list of WP:FANCRUFT with few citations, and even fewer that seem to be WP:Reliable Sources; some of them merely reference a book on amazon.jp. There's simply far too much detail, which I think the FANCRUFT tag that's been there since August of this year sums up nicely. I realize that other pages like this exist for other shows, but I wouldn't mind seeing them go as well; this is far too detailed and nowhere near notable enough for en.wikipedia, and far more suited for a wikipedia dedicated to Gundam. Cheers Skinny87 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an extra rationale, this would seem to be in breach of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#Directory, point seven, which states that wikipedia should not be used to host "A complete exposition of all possible details", as well as WP:IINFO, specifically point three, which prohibits "Excessive listing of statistics."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- G.A.S (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Excessively detailed, unencyclopedic, and a violation of WP:NOT#Directory, as stated by the nom. Ordinarily I'd go for a redirect, but the phrase "Universal Century technology" is an implausible redirect, so I !vote for delete. ƒ(Δ)² 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now neutral. ƒ(Δ)² 17:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Looks like it was already up for deletion once before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Century technology but got moved back to this title with the promise that it will be cleaned up: link to discussion -- œ ^™ 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm satisfied with it now after the recent cleanup by MythSearcher. -- œ ^™ 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, for both changing to keep and help in the formating and clean up. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article currently includes at least 7 reliable and verifiable secondary sources.(1 quite strange soruce in the talk page was exculded from the article) The article got quite a lot of new sources that is different from the last deletion and a proposal of deleting the lengthy list was given, it was being cleaned up and the only thing left is deleting the long list of items below, it is not performed yet simply because some of it is notable(AMBAC, Minovsky particle, Mega particle cannon and Funnels, each of these have citations maybe except the Minovsky particle for now). The last AfD said it is not notable out-universe, yet the current article quotes The Times and various other sources stating the topic's notability in the real world, including an International Academy of Gundam was established, the AMBAC was used in other franchises (Macross) and real life robots was inspired by these. Furthermore, it is also a secondary source that said the series adapted real life technology thus making it an academic material. I can present a few new sources here as well, that are 3 books called When SF overtakes Science (Japanese), Mobile Suit Epoch (1 & 2 Chinese, independently published) it mentioned the Universal Century quite a few times for its space colony, directed energy weaponry, robot technology and such. I can understand that the article is long and over detailed, it is also quoting a lot of non-English sources due to its Japanese nature and many of the secondary sources uses the name Gundam or Universal Century in the title to make them clear of what they are talking about and confuse a lot of foreigners that they are primary sources. Yet these should not be used to distract the point that reliable, verifiable secondary sources do exist, and the directory status of the article is not a concern of the WP:N (notability only concern's the article, not the contents). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt that the ability of the Gundam fictitious technology to inspire real-world technology is completely real and notable; that article was rather interested, actually, However, apart from a few sentences at the beginning of the article citing that article, the rest of Universal Century technology is simply a seemingly indiscriminate list of in-universe technology that should really only be that detailed in a Gundam-devoted wikia. When this article was nominated for AfD the first time, it was promised that it would be cleaned up; yet it hasn't, and I think there's been more than enough time to do so. I've no doubt that a (probably small but detailed) article could be written on how Gundam tech is influencing real tech, but this isn't it - that Times articles seems to have been used almost as an excuse to go into excessive detail about every weapon in the Gundamn universe, and wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for such lists. Skinny87 (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply That would be something that should be brought up in the article talk page, not an AfD, isn't it? Actually, since the talk page consensus is removing the lengthy list, you might as well be WP:BOLD and remove it yourself(and maybe leaving the sourced sections/sentences). I don't see moving it to AfD without actually trying to contribute to the article while claiming it can be real and notable. For the time issue, I will have to admit that I have been really busy and most of the sources and work on the alleged WP:NN articles of the said project are produced by me, and while others might support my work in some clean up, I have to from time to time engage in long and tedious AfDs. I will remove the list now, to show that it could be and would be done in order to save the article.(And also include the sources I brought up here) However, please be patient while the grammar and spellings might be terrible since not much time was given for me to translate the sources and include Japanese quotations since I type Japanese really slow due to the fact that I do not know how to pronounce a lot of kanji(but my Chinese background allowed me to be able to read and understand most of them). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Partly cleaned up If you deem any of the lengthy description still too long, feel free to trim them. I am done for now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: All it needs is to be shortened to avoid overdetailing but if there are too many people out there who wish to see this page removed from Wikipedia then it should be Trans-wikied to the Gundam Wiki if possible so this work will not be put to waste. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is clearly notable, given how much has been written by third-party sources on the subject; maybe more cleanup is needed, but it looks to be headed in the right direction. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable with the present references but need to adhere to strict reading of WP:V to avoid OR and other unverifiable stuffs which such article tend to attract. --KrebMarkt 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, that will be one of the main concerns. Another concern would be people trying to add back the long list of sourced stuff that are in-universe and not notable and are mainly only sourced from the primary sources. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:25, 10 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. Possible renames and redistribution of content are left up to article editors to discuss and enact. Skomorokh 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Ontario and GTA Tornado Outbreak, August 20 2009

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

Seems contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is about a single incident severe storm/tornado with property damage and one fatality. Extensively covered in other articles, such as Tornadoes of 2009. Also, see earlier consensus at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#2009 southern Ontario tornados. Singularity42 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Wikipedia article is NOT contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS. This is one of the most costly and damaging tornado outbreaks ever in Ontario. The proximity of damaging F2 tornadoes to Toronto (specifically in Vaughan) is unprecedented and has prompted calls to review and change the severe weather warning process in Canada. As such, this is a unique and historic event that is worthy of its own article.^[1]

The coverage of this event on other pages such as Tornadoes of 2009 is brief and lacking details, and is an inappropriate ___location for information regarding changes to the severe weather warning system in Canada that are likely to come as a direct result of this specific outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJF444 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think coverage in other articles is adequate. In addition to the nomination, I also have difficulty with the article's title (esp. the use of the abbreviation "GTA") and the response from TJF444 implies a level of WP:SPECULATION. PK T(alk) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the speculation to which you are referring regards the implications of this event to the warning system in Canada, there is a clear reference to one of many news sources that discuss the matter and, thus, is not speculation. Also, unless I am mistaken, there are only two comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#2009 southern Ontario tornados that seem to oppose the creation of this article and I would argue that this does not constitute a "consensus".

It should also be noted that there are other Wikipedia Articles, eg: Hurricane Juan, regarding weather events in Canada with similar historic significance (ie: events that are particularly destructive for their region, resulting in rare death and destruction, and prompt calls for changes to the warning system). TJF444 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444[reply]

Keep. I think the notability here arises due to the fact that the entire province of Ontario experiences an average of 11 tornadoes per calendar year and there were 12 on August 20 alone. It is also the first time in almost 25 years that more than two F2 tornadoes were registered in one day. This information is per official records of Environment Canada and other sources exist to back up claims of the outbreak rather than just the individual tornadoes. Damage from one of the tornadoes was sufficient enough that a state of emergency was declared and inquiry into possible federal financial assessment has also been triggered as a result. Sufficient prior precedent for these types of articles exists, such as 1997 Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak, February 2009 tornado outbreak, 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak et al. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, I suggest the article be renamed to August 2009 Ontario tornado outbreak or something similar for the purposes of geographic correctness. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (well, really delete, but that's a given since I'm the nominator... :) ) -- If a new early warning weather system, or something similar is in fact created (or announced will be created) as a result of these tornadoes, then I would agree with keeping the article. But at this time, all there has been are discussions about the possibility, so really, WP:SPECULATION applies for now (yes, there is a reference that it is a possibility, but it is not a certainty as required by Wikipedia). I also wouldn't compare this to hurricane articles. Hurricanes are rarer than tornados, cause extensive more damage to property, has a larger effect on people's lives, and have a much wider impact. Really, the only argument supporting notability at this stage is how rare it was that there were so many tornadoes in a small geographical area in Sourthern Ontario in a single day. I just can't see how that is notable enough for its own article... I also agree with Big Bird about a name change if the article is kept. Singularity42 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also add that although there exists articles about other tornado incidents, the ones cited were much deadlier, with a wider impact, and tended to have long-term consequences. I just don't see this incident in the same type of category as the ones cited. Singularity42 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think issues surrounding the early warning system or anything else of the sort are undoubtedly non-notable and not throroughly verifiable at this point. For that reason and because it's not prominently and unreservedly featured in the article itself, I don't think that lack of verifiability or notability of an early warning system should have a direct impact on whether this article is to be kept. The issue of the number of tornadoes in one day and subsequent damage easily passes criteria set out at WP:N due to significant coverage from reliable sources. There is no lack of verifiability and the coverage is definitely significant and available in multiple sources. That other hurricanes or tornadoes were deadlier shouldn't really affect the outcome of this debate if this subject can prove its own notability and I think it clearly does. The third-party coverage on this subject has been extensive enough that no original research is needed to synthesize the individual sources to come to a separate conclusion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Also a given since I am the author). I agree with the comments above. As of this evening, there have been thirteen tornadoes confirmed with this outbreak making it one of the largest outbreaks in Ontario history.^[2] As mentioned, the financial impact and human toll makes this one of the most notable tornado events in Ontario of late, and certainly one of historic proportions. Extreme public interest has been noted by media sources, for example CP24.^[3] This alone should represent a heightened interest in this event and thus warrant the creation of an independent and extended article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJF444 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was mentioned on the news here in the UK. They also stated the rarity of tornadoes here compared to the American Mid-West. Due to the number of tornadoes in a single day I'd say that the event is notable enough to support an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of you all squabbling, how about someone just FIX THIS to make it fit instead of tossing out people's work? Is it any wonder why people are not contributing due to this elitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.107.152 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "FIX THIS". We aren't squabbling. We are having a thoughtful review to determine if there is a consensus to keep the article as a stand-alone article or whether the content should be included in an already existing article. WP:Notability is the most important guideline about the inclusion of articles in Wikipedia, and we are trying to determine if this article meets the criteria or not. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - Massive and important event in Southern Ontario history, one of the worst series of Tornadoes in decades in the region, marked by largely unprecedented tornado strikes on towns and urban centres. I do believe that this article should stand but should be renamed to reflect "Southern Ontario" not "Central Ontario and GTA" because it was not exclusive to those two regions, it also struck Durham and Markdale which are in Southwestern Ontario. DMighton (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as the content goes somewhere and isn't tossed out, fine. 174.112.107.152 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES

At least one of the tornadoes was in northern Ontario, near North Bay. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it's been airing on Inside Edition and WDIV-TV and getting widespread media coverage in the United States, so its' obviously a major outbreak, at least by Canadian/worldwide/outside-the-USA standards... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to August 2009 tornado outbreak and also include August 19 in the US Midwest states as part of the article, as that was due to the same system and was fairly significant as well. Combined, they have a better case for an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - name must include ONTARIO I believe that the title of this article should specify "Ontario"; the reason that this event is so exceptional directly relates to the rarity and historic significance within the province. The 1997 Southeast Michigan tornado outbreak is an article about a tornado outbreak that had the greatest impact in Michigan, but also included tornadoes in eight other American states and the province of Ontario. Similarly, I think that it is appropriate that this title reflect the extraordinary impact in Ontario, even though other tornadoes may have been associated in other areas. This is a particularly historic outbreak for Ontario and thus justifies the inclusion of "Ontario" in the title. Per naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado, August 2009 Ontario tornado outbreak seems the most appropriate title. TJF444 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444. TJF444 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)TJF444[reply]

Not if it covers a larger-scale event that took place over 2 days, and that would include at least 35 tornadoes, 22 of which were not in Ontario. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is 1985 United States-Canadian tornado outbreak which has both countries in the title, maybe it would another instance with this outbreak, though whether the August should be kept in the title remains for debate.--JForget 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename as well to include the Illinois/Indiana severe weather outbreak the day before. Also one criteria that CrazyC83 used as a general criteria for a tornado article was an F2/EF2 or stronger tornado that hits a city of over 50 000. Looking at the Vaughan article, it has a 2006 population of almost a quarter-million people (never thought it was that much populated) and is likely one of the fastest growing areas of the GTA today. In addition by combining the tornadoes of August 19 and 20 it also surpasses the 25 tornado/1 fatal tornado criteria. JForget 02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was expanded, there are some other notes: Although not EF2, the Minneapolis tornado on August 19 also hit downtown. The strongest tornado (the EF3 in Illinois) may also warrant extra mention. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even it was very weak it can be added of course, although probably only in the/a synopsis/summary section. None of the US tornadoes might warrant its individual section though.JForget 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Yikes! You know where the review is headed when the AfD nominator changes their opinion to keep...) I think a lot of good points have been made about keeping the article's content, probably expanded in some way. Definitely needs a rename, but that can be dealt with in the article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:49, 6 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. per clear consensus JForget 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer of the Gods (Manowar album)

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

WP:HAMMER, we only have the album's title Canniba loki 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, with a HAMMER in the title this escapes WP:HAMMER; but it fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Time enough for an article when something more than the name is known. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Come on, how can an album titled "Hammer of the Gods" fail WP:HAMMER? But it does fail WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:36, 7 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. fails WP:NOT (a travel guide) JForget 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster County Drive

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

Either a street which does not exist, or more likely, a scenic drive from a guidebook. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Pennsylvania-related deletions and transportation-related deletions. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a DIY road tour taken straight out of "National Geographic's Guide to Scenic Highways & Byways" with no evidence of notability. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Seems the road name is the work of National Geographic's explorers, it is never published anywhere else other than in the book itself. I support any decision made upon this article (because I doubt it too). --Farras^{La Poste} 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no evidence of existence outside the pages of National Geographic (it wouldn't surprise me to learn it was a copyvio), and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it reads like a travel guide, it's likely a bad copyvio ("As drive past" probably isn't the original wording) of a story about a scenic drive. Not a trivial road, but quite a trivial and nonnotable subject. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: Like most streets, non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 6 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) 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varna demon

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

The only source about this article is a humorous TV report. This is quite insufficient to pretend that there is such a creature and to pretend that it is "studied" by cryptozoology, as such templates are put in the article. The article has recently been deleted for unreliable sources on Bulgarian Wikipedia: Уикипедия:Страници за изтриване/Варненско "извънземно" (второ гласуване) PetaRZ (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This alleged creature does not seem to have coverage that would make it notable. If the article is kept, it should at the least be rewritten, as it is currently worded as if it is proven fact that the creature exists. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Аgainst -- Be democratic. This Article may have a future. Denso 90 vn (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy --PetaRZ (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real evidence of notability. This kind of topic needs the sort of coverage given to melon heads, but such coverage is lacking for Varna demons. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not democracy? OK! OK! -- Ebola90 (talk) 22:14, 9 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) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bennington Triangle

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

No non-primary verifiable sources. No sources less than 28 years old. No indication listed references contain evidence of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a copy of analysis of listed references on article.

About.com: http://www.strangenation.com.au/articles/vanish.htm

Dead link

Adams, Mary Gavel "The Bennington Monster." Green Mountain Whittlin's, 1950

59 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.

Stock, R.D.; Zeller, J. "The Strange Disappearances at Mt. Glastenbury." FATE, July 1957

52 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable.

Brandon, Jim. Weird America. Penguin Publishing |Year=1978

31 year old book. I have not checked this yet, more later.

Jacobs, Sally. "Ghost Towns." Burlington Free Press|Year=Oct 25, 1981

Only reference I could find on line to Sally Jacobs and Ghost Towns was in a book by Joseph Citro. No references to her primary sources. Furthermore reference is not 17 years old (as I previously posited, it is 28 years old.

Citro, Joseph A. Green Mountain Ghosts, Ghouls, and Unsolved Mysteries. University of New England/ Vermont Life, 1994

Primary source.

Citro, Joseph A. Passing Strange: True Tales of New England Hauntings and Horrors.

Globe-Pequot, 1997

Primary source.

Checking for the Jim Brandon book now to see if I can dig it up.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I looked up Jim Brandon and found out that this is actually a pseudonym for William N. Grimstad, a conspiracy theorist. I confirmed that Weird America is a real book although it isn't on google books or available online that I can find so I can't confirm that it contains anything that would count as a verifiable source for commentary on Citro's proposition. I don't want to look too hard at Grimstad as I am at a work computer and the first page of google links to his name mostly brings up white supremicist sites. I'm AfDing as I am now convinced that none of the bullet-point sources constitute RS.Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Just by the flawed reasoning of the nom. With comments like "59 year old periodical. Not reasonably verifiable", the nom needs to understand that Al Gore invented the internet in the late 20th century and anything pre-2000-esque is not heavily covered on the net. Old books and ""59 year old periodicals" without internet hyperlinks are not and have never been excluded as reliable sources per WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY. (to the humor challenged, the Al Gore bit is a joke) --Oakshade (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not saying old books aren't notable. However when there is literally not a single source less than 28 years old commenting on the subject I would question if it remains notable in the modern world.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So unless some 10th century king has not been subject to a biography since 1981 we are deleting them now? Plus the article itself says the term was coined in 1992 and one source says it is 1994. Have agree the nomination logic is screwy, but will hold off on vote until I look a little more. --Milowent (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding was that notability depended on critical commentary of the subject at hand. The majority of references cited are primary sources or, as Milowent pointed out, predate the claimed coining date for the phrase. A fringe theory about a mountain in the USA is not the same as a 10th century king.Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As they predate the coining of the term they can hardly be references to the notability of the term. They do not represent second or third party commentary on Citro's primary source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The various sources listed do support the existance of individual stories about "weird event X that is said to have happened in Y town" .... but they don't support the the idea that these individual stories are connected together in some way (ie the idea that there is a "Bennington Triangle", the topic of the article). The idea that the individual stories are connected in some way is a theory created by author Joseph A. Citro, and dates to 1992 (well after the listed sources). Thus, to establish that the topic of this article is notable, we need sources that comment on the theory that a "Bennington Triangle" exists, not sources that simply retell the disperate tales that form the basis for the theory. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of opinion: It seems that sources that do support the notability of the tipic, and comment on Citro's theory, may exist after all (see Milowent's comments below). If this is indeed the case, then the article needs to be fixed, and if fixed should be Kept. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~Thank you, that is what I was trying to get at~~. I am not entirely convinced but will not kick up a fuss if the decision is to keep the article. With that said please, pretty please, get some verifiable in-line citations into it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Far more than enough sources and weight to be notable. BTW, I was able to access the relevant pages of the Weird America (2005) book via Amazon inside. I also fixed the "dead link" to about.com by finding that article preserved at the Internet Archive. While Citro coined the phrase "Bennington Triangle", he's apparently been able to publish at least 3 books which talk about it, and many other sources also reference the phrase. Google News Archives reveals a number of references in local papers such as the "Bennington Banner" to the phrase (most of these are pay archives to be able to access full content). Any references in the articles prior to 1992 are not going to use the term "Bennington Triangle" but are instead references to the underlying events which led to the coining of the term. But there is lots and lots out there on this term, beyond just the tons of ghost/weird-things type websites out there, like the ref I just added to The Cracker Barrel, which is a southern Vermont publication put out by the Deerfield Valley News. I think this is part of the local folklore now based on my 30 minutes spent on the subject, and that an article on this subject improves the project--Milowent (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article do indeed back up the statements, and indeed do constitute reliable sources (please see WP:RS and WP:V). That said, some improvement on the article would really be nice ;) Cheers, I'^mperator 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems to be enough substantiation of both the name and "mystery" for inclusion. In addition to the work others ahead of me have put in, a search around the internet throws up a wide variety of discussions well before this wikipedia article was published. Lochaber (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kind of silly and fictive. Derivative name. There are probably thousands of these in the US alone. Why encourage nonsense? Student7 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether a source is one month old or 59 years old. A source is a source and should never be judged by its age. The source listed are correct and should be kept on the basis of its source. Jeremy (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the sources do establish notability. Dream Focus 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided establish notability. I'm unaware of a requirement that sources about an individual be under 28 years old. Such an arbitrary rule would eliminate all articles about anyone under 28 years of age, say Britney Spears or companies like Google or Ebay. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 7 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. Original research and redundancy with other articles are resolvable problems and irrelevant to the scope of AfD. There is no consensus to delete the article, and as is pointed out, to merge in any substantial sense would be contrary to community guidelines. Skomorokh 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Tyrell

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

This character is from a single film, and notability is not asserted in any way. The plot summary is massive and completely redundant to the main article, and the rest is original research. TTN (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Villain of a singular film, the bits about what they intended to do with the character could be put to some use in respective articles if sourced.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's a merge--we need to keep the history if we reuse the content. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No DGG, that's common sense. Even the worst of articles can have some content salvaged from them and should in many cases. You tend to look at things too black-and-white in this regard, no offense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article concerning a major character in a blockbuster film series is verifiable through published books, including even a print encyclopedia (note first hit at Google books), i.e. no reason why we would not at worst try to improve first per WP:BEFORE or merge and redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as the main antagonist in a major work. There's a problem with merge-- the Film WikiProject has decided that its guidelines for content to not permit section on characters, individual or combined , except as they do it in extreme summary form under "cast" with the emphasis on the performer. . I think that's totally against the overall consensus, but if the section were merged they would undoubtedly then delete it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the content is completely duplicative of the main plot section, what exactly would you expect to be merged? The cast sections can only list a basic description of the character because that's all there is to describe. TTN (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and sourced character - I would have said merge but DGG's note above makes me pause, as if there is a merge then referenceable material is likely to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the main antagonist along with Niko in this film. This article was merged before but all the detail along with the sources were lost so I believe it is fine the way it is. Cheers. Auger Martel (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The character's name is Dorian Tyrell, and that's confirmed by three sources. That obviously means that the article meets WP:N's criteria of "significant coverage." I really think I should reform my ways and go create articles for every single film character in existence now that my eyes have been opened. Really, you think people wouldn't so casually just ignore a major guideline and the common fact that single film characters never retain articles. TTN (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to revisions, which by the way, also include placing the AfD template on the article that the nominator failed to do. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I remember this movie; it's not a major cultural reference, and I don't see any references that would contradict that. A character in a mid-rate movie hardly warrants its own article. None of those references seem to suggest the character is singularly special, let alone notable. I agree fully with TTN, and am similarly confused by how controversial this nom is. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mid-rate"? The movie grossed over $100 million dollars and spawned a sequel... Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Mask (1994 film). Doesn't need its own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:54, 8 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. Skomorokh 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here Come the Girls (song)

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

contested prod, no claim of notability, Billboard.com indicates that neither the single nor the album have charted. RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The reason I had for it to not be deleted is that it was the lead single of an independent album almost forty years after it's release.--Launchballer (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - The original version of the song is not well known, BUT the Sugababes' song Girls_(Sugababes_Song) is very well known, reaching number 3 here in the UK. Furthermore, both the Sugababes version AND this original version have been used for commercials for Boots The Chemist on TV here in England, see commercial here. Also, this original version WAS RERELEASED in the UK in 2007, on the back of the success of the advertisement. I would certainly vote to keep this song here, as the original version of a far more famous remix. Tris2000 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The re-release slipped onto the Irish Charts in December 2007: [31]. The UK charts are a little stingier with their archives, unfortunately. Fribbler (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm happy to do all the cleanup, redirects, merges and all that malarkey if required. The only reason I actually erected this article is for the sake of completeness.--Launchballer (talk) 20:46, 3 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. WP:SNOW JForget 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art for All Foundation and Center - Chulalongkorn University

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

Contested prod. Promotional article written in a highly unencyclopedic style. The deprodder added an equally unencyclopedic criticisms section for "balance." Google returns very few relevant results. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - spam spam spam spam spam. Why on earth wasn't this speedied? Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously spam, non-notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – You forgot the baked beans with that spam. MuZemike 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable program at a single college, spam is not always a problem for articles about institutions if it can be removed, but here there wouldn't be anything notable left. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 7 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 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liping Liu

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Article lists 13 publications, for which Google scholar finds a total of 35 citations, many of which are by the professor himself citing his own earlier work. Prod denied by anon IP whos whois traces back to the professor's own university department. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ assuming he is in Who's Who, which he seems to be. A Who's Who profile is, like an ODNB article, considered to be evidence of wider notability. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Talk:Marquis Who's Who, a "Who's Who" inclusion is not so noteworthy as one might assume. Marquis' selection criteria are not clear, so it can't be judged that a biographee is necessarily notable under Wikipedia standards. Since no other reliable sources can be found on Professor Liu, I don't think that single fact suffices. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, point - wasn't aware of that. Delete then, since I can't find anything else - a pity since I just spent five mins tweaking his article. Ho hum. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites do not appear to be sufficient. Who's Who is not so notable. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. Using Scopus + Web ofScience, I can find only one cited paper, "A theory of coarse utility" (1995) Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 11 (1), pp. 17-49., cited 6 times--5 out of the by other papers of him. That's compatible with the GS results. This is not a career that can be considered important in the subject. And we do not accept who;s who articles as notability-- certainly not for WW in America and its subsidiaries. Their standards are unknown, and their articles are based almost entirely on material submitted by the subject. They presumably have some form of screening, but it is not reliable enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 10 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. per ~~WP:SNOW~~ clear consensus. JForget 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divinism

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

Non-notable "philosophy" that appears to have no existence outside its own website and a couple of blogs. Zero meaningful google hits. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: non-notable topic based solely on User:Gregkaye's self-citation to his WP:SELFPUB website. May qualify as WP:SPEEDY G11. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject". The only sources I can find are this, which is the founder's website and is neither reliable, third-party or independent and this, which may or may not be about the same thing but either way, as a geocities site, is not reliable. Note that the concept by the name of "divinism" is found in almost all major religions, but it is completely distinct from this faux-religion and not in any way related. People searching for sources on google books may pull up lots of hits for divinism as I did, but these all refer to the religious concept, not the religion. In reply to Hrafn - can we get it under "non-notable club"? :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable "religionette". The term "divinism" could perhaps be defined in Wiktionary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N - I agree with Ironholds - the word can be found used in Christianity, Hinduism, applied to the cult of Father Divine, etc but not this way. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen a proposed WP:DICDEF. But, it is no less a dictionary defnition. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to Divinization: would this be a likely search target? If not, delete, as this topic is clearly not notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glennbeckish

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7 by Fribbler. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glennbeckish

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

Disputed WP:NEO PROD, also WP:DICTIONARY ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soapboxy neologism. No references showing that the term is in regular use either. Delete, do not copy to wikitionary RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to BLP issues (negative content fork about a living person). Aside from that, is a non-notable neologism which shows no evidence of regular use, let alone in-depth coverage of the term in reliable sources. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:04, 3 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) Erik9 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Titus

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

Article about a wrongfully convicted individual who appears to otherwise completely unremarkable (see WP:BLP1E). Although the story of this wrongful conviction won a Pulitzer Prize for "Local Investigative Specialized Reporting", this amounts to a short sentence in the article and the author's name is incorrect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom's findings. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per rename. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reason for delete is wrong. The man is dead so WP:BLP1E is incorrect; the L in BLP stands for living people. The man/event was so notable that a book was written on it and he was a source of a Pulitzer Prize. If people want to retitle the article, it's ok with me but to kill it is not right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_David_Lynn_Harris gives us some guidance as a book was written on that except that it did not win a Pulitzer Prize. That other article was kept. The reasoning for that article gives us guidance (and no "other crap exists" excuse"; the other stuff is given for guidance not as a "me too" proposal) Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was renamed to be about the case I could probably live with it although I think it needs some clean up. If the story won a pullitzer prize I think that's a pretty good indication of notability, but not necessarily for the person what was the subject of the story, but for the story itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest name change to "Conviction of Steve Titus" (or possibly "Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus") Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus is okay with me. It should be a bit more about the story winning a pullitzer perhaps, and less a play by play. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rename may be justified, but topic is clearly notable. Subject of a Pulitzer-winning series of articles, discussed in detail in this book. ^Bongo_matic 06:44, 7 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. The article was changed significantly in the middle of the AfD, so many of the earlier comments can't be properly applied to the article as it stands now. The comments surrounding the most recent version appear to be heading towards keeping the article, yet there was such amount of contention surrounding a few points (such as the relevance of WP:HOWTO) that make me uncomfortable with a keep closure. No consensus seems like an optimal closure as it satisfies the recent keep votes yet takes into account the unusual circumstances in regards to the significant improvement and the remaining concerns by those asking for deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots

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

Unsourced original research. Contested prod. A previous version of the article contained the sentence "Plotting the imaginary roots using empty circle in the Cartesian coordinate system is something new I am proposing" so was obviously OR. This sentence has been removed by subsequent edits, but contents of article have not been substantially changed and no sources have been provided to demonstrate it is not OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that during this discussion the article was moved to Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. Title, topic and contents are now completely different from the nominated version. The original (and still unsourced) contents of the article were moved to its talk page and so effectively removed from Wikipedia article space. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have active discussions on the article's talk page by interested editors. The nomination seems to be forum shopping and/or forcing the issue in a disruptive way. There is no need for a 7-day deadline and so, per WP:BEFORE, ordinary methods of editing should be tried first. Note that I have provided multiple good sources which touch on this matter. The nominator disputes them but so it goes ... Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Escalating to AfD when a prod tag is removed (and removed by you, let us note) is standard practice so I invite you to withdraw your unfounded accusations of forum shopping and disruption. I still see no sources that describe this specific method of visually finding complex roots of a quadratic equation. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is hardly OR. LOL! Mathematicians have known about exactly this aspect of analytic geometry for quite a while now. To say that they haven't would mean the author of this article deserves a Fields medal (assuming they are under 40 years of age, of course, which he/she probably is). --Firefly322 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I see no such sources.Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of potential sources (1) The American mathematical monthly, (2) ON-Math Spring 2003 | Volume 1, Number 3 "Connecting Complex Roots to a Parabola's Graph", (3) "Roots of Quadratic Equations from Parabola graph". Since this is a mere cursory look, hardly involving the digging that an expert could perform, the potential sources and possibility of article expansion here seem quite vast. An argument that there is a lack of sources doesn't hold up, falls foul of WP:BEFORE. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact WP:BEFORE reads "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." I see ZERO effort on the part of the nominator to have been made. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is original research that doesn't cite any reliable sources. It seems like good material, but that isn't a sufficient excuse for having the article. Independent reliable sources would need to be found. Recommend the material is userfied until then. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial to find maths articles which have no sources - see Disjoint union for example. It is clearly not our policy to delete them as a matter of course. See our actual policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let's stick to the point. You (or any other editor) can preserve this article very simply - you just have to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I still see no such sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good argument when the precedents are valid - please read it. Your appeal to it is therefore a WP:VAGUEWAVE. As for sources, I've already made a good start and this fork in the discussion isn't helping as we are now diverted by tiresome AFD rhetoric rather than getting at the facts of the matter. Do you actually dispute the correctness of this mathematical method? I just took another quick look and soon found this paper which seems to apply the same idea to quintics. The topic is clearly not original and our task seems how best to present it rather than punishing a naive editor for his impudence contrary to WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The method is correct, but that is irrelevant. Unless it has been described in a reliable source it does not belong in Wikipedia - our benchmark is verifiability, not truth. A paper on finding real roots of quintics is not related to an article on finding complex roots of quadratics. I still see no sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements. Open to userfication per above. Verbal chat 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again if this is OR, then its original editor deserves a Fields medal. If one doesn't believe this editor deserves a Fields medal, then one must logically conclude that this OR-argument is false. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FireFly, please stick to wikipedia reasons. Provie RS or stop going on about the Fields medal. If someone has won such an award for this, then provide the RS. I realise you've had problems understanding our guidelines in the past, but you've been here long enough now to know that these sorts of arguments aren't valid. Verbal chat 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a "how to". Abductive (reasoning) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are seven points in WP:NOTHOWTO none of which mention mathematics articles. This is a specious argument that also falls foul of WP:BITE. Just as the argument labeling it WP:OR does. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See point 4 and 6, for starters. The reference to "bite" is unsupportable. Verbal chat 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Point 4 clearly wasn't written with math articles in mind. Using it here seriously distorts any semblance of right or wrong on wikipedia. Nearly all mathematics articles seem to violate point 4. But clearly math articles are wanted. As for point 6, how in the world does that apply? I don't see any relevance to this AFD debate. And WP:BITE does indeed apply. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all math articles need be guides on how to perform certain mathematical operations, and even if many of them do, WP:WAX is not a good argument. Point 4 seems to clearly apply to this: as currently written, it is just like a textbook, and should therefore be put on wikibooks. I believe that the topic itself could be treated encyclopedically, but I think it would require major work to make it that way. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ ~~Unsourced~~ how-to. I don't see how the topic could be made into something suitable for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. Article has been effectively deleted and a new one made in its place. Still has how-to problems. Should be stubbed if nothing but the lede can be sourced. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Scjessey, and Verbal. Ozob (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When there are those here who claim to have Ph.D.'s in Math, but their comments don't really hold up to such a claim, using them to bolster arguments via per is naive at best. See Essjay controversy. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to personal attacks, which have seen you blocked for very long periods quite recently. Verbal chat 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't threaten me with a past in which I called a spade a spade ([Orangemarlin stopped because he was about to get wiki-sensored or banned]). The fact that you continue to go to great lengths to defend an editor capable of such junk is not a good indicator of your judgement then or now. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The basis of this nomination seems dubious at best. previous version of the article contained the sentence.... What a previous version of the article contained seems to be completely irrelevant. In fact I went and looked at the list of arguments not to use in a deletion discussion and was wondering if maybe I could find something along those lines already listed. I didn't find it, but maybe we should consider adding it. Finding the roots of a parabola is certainly a notable topic. I can pull books off my shelf that discuss the topic. The method is certainly verifiable, in the discussion on the discussion page, I pointed to at least one discussion of imaginary intersections, in Hamilton's Elements of Quaternions article 214, with the only problem being that this particular article discusses the imaginary intersections of lines and circles. A little digging would probably turn up parabolas as well, but if not found in that particular text, it seems pretty obvious that this topic has been discussed some place before.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument LOL, lets say that the current method being presented is original, and has never been proposed before. That is not really relevant, because if there exists any notable published graphical method for finding imaginary roots of a parabola then the article could be fixed by substituting that method, for the current method. Suppose that Gandalf61 could prove not only that this method is original, which I doubt, but also that no method of graphically finding the imaginary roots a parabola has ever been found up until the present article under discussion. If this were the case he could certainly find reliable sources stating this to be the case. If he wants to claim that this is indeed the case, I challenge him to find documentation for this remarkable fact. Yet that would still not be grounds for deleting the article as its contents should then read that there is no known graphical method for finding the roots of a parabola, citing the sources that Gandalf61 has provided. Of course if this were the case, this wonderful new method will soon be published in reliable sources, and we can then once again include it as well.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? The method only works for the parabola given. Try 0.75(x – 7)² + 5; the "visual method" gives about 7 ± 2.235i, but the actual roots are closer to 7 ± 2.582i. The problem is the choice of nothing but powers of two in the example in the article; 0.5(x – 4)² + 2. Can any mathematicians check my work? I think I'm right. Abductive (reasoning) 07:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. The "visual method" gives the correct answer. It doesn't give anything like 2.235 as the imaginary part. Certainly the proposed method is correct; that's easy to see. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this visual method is essentially useless for anything other than the rare cases where the intercepts are integers, since one can't accurately read answers with square roots as terms. It's still original research and How To and against the rules. It should be on wikiHow.com. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the visual method, Abductive, put the image up for deletion, you don't delete an article because of the image in the article, wouldn't you agree? The image can be easily removed. Just like sources could have easily be found by the nominator, in which he neglected to do, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE Ikip (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ikip: If it is so easy to find sources for the original article, then it is strange that the original article material remained completely unsourced right up to the point when you removed it all from the article. I see nothing in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that requires a nominator to entirely rewrite an article, changing both its topic and its contents to fit an arbitrary list of available sources, as has been done here. Your ad hominen attacks on myself and other editors simply reveal the lack of substantive arguments for retaining any of the original material. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the award for biggest personal attack goes to.....Hfran.[32] When I asked him to remove these personal attacks, he deleted my response.[33] Asking an editor to follow WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE is not a personal attack.

Ummm. Grandlf61. There are 20 references now to the article. No amount of accusations against me change this. No amount of accusation against me change the fact that the original reason you wanted this deleted was, and I quote, "Unsourced original research." Sources are provided, substantive arguments are addressed, and now the reason for deletion changes by most those editors who want to delete. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ikip:... and not a single one of those references is about the very specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation that was described in the original article. Not one. None. The text of the original article (i.e. the text that you removed to the talk page and that Spinningspark is now attempting to restore to the new article) is still completely unsourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Just now I took a few seconds and drew the graph of Abductive's proposed example by hand on paper. Just eyeballing it, I'd read the answer as about 2.6 for the imaginary part. That is was algebra confirms. Quite aside from his advertising his inability to handle such a simple problem, his claim that by staring at the page he can come up with the thousandth's digit is astonishing. Even if you used a microscope, how would you draw the graph that accurately on a microscopic level with a pen and paper? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep beating that drum, it makes you look like a great person. Which parabola did you eyeball? Abductive (reasoning) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is well-sourced encyclopedic content on a notable topic that comes up in many math courses and is treated in a number of texts and journal articles. Nominator ignored WP:BEFORE guidelines and did not tag problem areas with tags such as {{Notability}} or {{Original research}} prior to nominating for deletion. Normal editing processes should be pursued to improve, and article has been substantially improved already.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Math.geek3.1415926: Strongly suggest you get your facts straight before lobbing round nasty little bad-faith accusations like that one. This version shows that the article was tagged (with {{Unreferenced}}) when I nominated it, and discussions on its talk page before nomination had failed to produce any relevant sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced tag was added a mere 45 hours before your proposed deletion. Why the rush to propose deletion without giving the normal editorial process time to improve the article? In isolation, "unreferenced" is not sufficient criteria for deletion IF the references exist to add them. However, tracking down references often takes some time and a trip to the library. Experienced editors should gently guide new editors toward more encyclopedic practices, not rush to justify throwing their contributions int the delete bin. The march toward possible deletion should be a slow one, giving editors ample opportunity to improve articles.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Math.geek3.1415926:You do not seem to realise that prodding and AfD nominations are part of the "normal editorial process". The original article was a rambling, unsourced, badly written, poorly illustrated "how to" manual for a trivial, non-notable method of finding approximate solutions to quadratic equations which any high school student can solve algebraically with far less effort. In the 4 weeks between 2 August when the original author last editted it and 30 August when I prod-ed it, it was editted twice; both edits were tags. Now in ten days it has been re-titled, re-focussed, sourced and entirely re-written, with input from numerous editors. Sometimes the "normal editorial process" needs a wake up call. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thinking is fallacious because it ignores the opportunity cost of this kafkaesque farrago. Our time and patience is limited and, by diverting us into unproductive bickering and bureaucracy, we are prevented from doing more useful work. When articles such as Graph of a function need improvement, we do not immediately start an AFD to start the clock ticking and stimulate activity. The proper process is to improve the article ourselves or, if we are incapable of that, to tag it for attention in an orderly manner by the relevant projects and interested editors. Moreover, by generating ill-will and strife, the deletion process tends to reduce the number of editors willing to exert themselves on behalf of the project. Please see WP:ZEAL for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, this could be taken as evidence that the Article Rescue Squadron needs to be more selective in the battles it chooses. Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break

Comment Everyone can see that it's a clumsily written article, neglecting WP:MOSMATH at every opportunity (not to mention all the incorrectly capitalized initial letters in the article's title). But as I also pointed out on its talk page, the graphs are grossly incorrectly drawn in a way that causes secondary-school pupils to lose points. That doesn't encourage me to sympathize with its author very much, even if the remedy would be to clean it up rather than to delete it. But now to the content of the main point: that content is worth maybe a couple of paragraphs if an article is to be made of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like WP:OR, and appears to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. One of the two supposed potential sources presented on the talk page does not verify the content of the article (indeed, it is about Cardano's solution of the cublic equation, which is a different though related matter). I cannot access the other suggested source, so I will not comment, but the editor who presented it also failed to indicate any details, merely stating that it is "another interesting angle". Verifiable material would, in any event, most likely be better covered in an article on quadratic equations since it seems very unlikely that a single method of visual would rise to the level of notability that a dedicated article must surely demand. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some fraction into completing the square. It is kind of worth a graphic illustration there. Otherwise, frankly, it seems to be the sort of mathematics you leave for people to discover for themselves. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested input from WikiProject Mathematics for this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (part) into completing the square#Complex roots. If there is anything worthwhile, it should be there. The article title is a misnomer, but understandable; however, even if the method could be sourced, it belongs in completing the square. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous suggestion - completing the square is not a graphical method, it is an analytic method, how can that be suitable target for a merge? Completing the square is relevant only to quadratics, how can that be a suitable target for an article about solutions to polynomials? Completing the square is only one method, how can that become an article about multiple methods? SpinningSpark 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to some Wikibook module, per my comments above. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have developed the article to improve its structure. Numerous sources have been added including Graphical Solutions for Complex Roots of Quadratics, Cubics and Quartics (National Mathematics Magazine 17 (4): 147-150) and Graphing the Complex Roots of a Quadratic Equation (The College Mathematics Journal 16 (4): 257-261). These demonstrate the notability of the topic and rebut the complaints that sources are lacking. The only issue remaining is that the article might be a how-to but this is a stylistic issue rather than a reason to delete. To see how we present such matters generally, please see our category: Root-finding algorithms which contains numerous articles of a similar nature. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These changes have not made the article any better and it's still a clear delete candidate. Verbal chat 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straw man, Colonel Warden. You have added a series of content-free one sentence sections as a coatrack for sources that are not related to the original material. No one has claimed that general graphical methods of finding roots of polynomial equations were not notable or could not be sourced. However, the original material, on a specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation (which does not generalise to higher order polynomials) is still completely unsourced and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:MATH, Most mathematical ideas are amenable to some form of generalization, and this seems the best way to go as I said at the outset. See our general editing policy, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTMANUAL, and specifically not a compendium of unsourced (even if mathematically valid) material on how to solve mathematical equations. That is the function of a maths textbook not an encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: as of this latest version, the vast bulk of the article (being the 'Quadratic equations' section, from the second sentence onward) is unsourced, and can thus reasonably be described as WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand if you would have made the claim that this article is unsourced 3 days ago, as many editors above did. But 35 minutes before you stated this page was unsourced (9:01), editors had finished adding 20 sources. There seems to be a real disconnect there. I would suggest striking this unsourced comment. Ikip (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text you mention Hrafn has now been removed from the page. So every section is now sourced. Nullifying 7 editors arguments here of OR and unsourced. Ikip (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised basis for opinion: the article as of this latest version contains no substantive content. It amounts to little more to a slight and trivial elaboration on the statement that 'you can solve polynomials graphically'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No matter what happens to this article, you and other editors will always, always support deletion.[34] Where is the compromise, the give take, the ability to say, you know what good job editor, you really made that article get turned around. Nope. Ikip (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your inane laughter to yourself. This article had no substantive, sourced content -- only a bunch of unsourced/WP:OR WP:HOWTO and a small amount of repeating the blindingly obious. After removal of the OR & the reptition, there is nothing substantive to keep, so little point in a "compromise" to preserve a non-informative stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep exhaustively researched now (as of 6 September), making the nominators original "original research" arguments of nominator, User:Sławomir Biały, User talk:Ronz, User:Ozob, User talk:Verbal, User:Scjessey irrelevant. I have no idea why Hrafn wrote that it was unsourced though. This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid. I agree with Colonel's arguments about sources above. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustively researched? You either tire easily, or missed out the fact that his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article, per nom and Hrafn. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal's original argument: "Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements." Verbal's arguments now: "his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article" Now we go into the inadequate reference phase, editors will name a reference, and the editors here can claim it is trivial or irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing nominator since the nomination, this article has gone though extensive improvements, with an astounding 20 footnotes added.[35] Ikip (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note These "improvements" are merely superficial and coatrack additions that do not serve to show notability or support the text. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid." Did I predict folks, did I predict it! Nevermind that verbal's original AFD argument is invalid now.Ikip (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My reasons haven't changed: wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the good of the project. Pleas stop your personal attacks on other editors. Hfran has it right above. Verbal chat 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another editor you regularly work with was nice enough to write me. Is this reversion okay? I am willing to work with you Verbal, to compromise with you. Ikip (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's no reason to delete this article after it has been repurposed as Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. There are enough sources for that topic, as evidenced by the 20 citations, and the quadratic equation is just a particular case. Sure, the quadratic section needs to be cleared of (potential) WP:OR by comparing, and potentially replacing its contents with what the sources say, but there's no reason to discard the contents that has been added to the article after this deletion nomination has been made. This new contents meets WP:V and WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I see that the unreferenced section has been removed now. Pcap ping 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Delete link after article move, as the old name has nothing to do with, and no content in common with, the new article. Delete or Userfy new article anyway, as the only content is 3 unrelated well-sourced sentences, but still not related to the topic of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trout for the person who renamed it, breaking links to the AfD from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was verbal, he deleted several paragraphs,[36] and then argued that it be deleted because it is an "appalling stub".[37] Ikip (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please provide a diff to where this supposed deletion took place? These highly misleading comments are becoming disruptive. Please stop or I will take this further, which could result in a block or ban from AfD. What I see there is several identical sentences, except for one word. I removed the duplication. It could be argued that the repeated one sentence sections were a misleading attempt to make the article look like it had some actual content. It became an appalling stub as soon as you removed all the WP:OR. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, I didn't do the rename. Please strike. I also find your changes to comments, after they have been replied to, a misleading altering of the record. Please strike and then rephrase, do not hide the problem edits (usually). Verbal chat 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to restore the original article. It is ridiculous that the article has been stubbed in the middle of a deletion debate on the grounds that it is unsourced. Either the article is unsourcable and will be deleted at the end of the debate, or it is sourcable, in which case the text should be left in place while the sources are found. Besides, I suspect that the stub is innaccurate, or at least misleading while there does not appear to be anything actually wrong with the article. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this, as you can restore the material with sources as you find the sources. Otherwise it is silly to add unsourced WP:OR to an article during an AfD, unless you want it deleted! Verbal chat 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced has never, by itself, been a reason to delete. You are removing the very article this debate is discussing. The worthless stub you have left behind certainly deserves to be deleted, sourced or not. SpinningSpark 17:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I don't think anyone has made the claim here that the article should be deleted merely because it is not sourced, and I agree that that once the unsupportable OR is removed what is left certainly deserves deletion. Perhaps you should change your !vote to reflect your new view? Verbal chat 17:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do, I have said what I think and sarcasm won't change my mind. What I was going to do was to actually work on the article, but there is no fucking point if you are going to keep deleting it unless it is perfect. If you want to complain about my incivility you will now have to come to my talkpage as I am now unwatching both the article and this debate. SpinningSpark 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break 2

Strong Keep. This is almost a self evidently notable method. I am pretty certain that quality sources will not be hard to find. The argument that this is a "how-to" also holds little weight for me, mathematics articles commonly include at least simple examples for clarification. Such articles include the alternative methods of completing the square and quadratic equation both include either analytic or graphical examples, as does the parent article polynomial. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per others and WP:BEFORE. Biofase ^flame| stalk 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has been completely remade now, but only Verbal's version [38] is appropriate. The other version still has How To and OR. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Abductive; this is a total rewrite, and promising - that version should be kept; I hope it will continue, since the new article is far from complete, and I am curious how it will treat quartics with a single real extremum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh......... Keep, but it's strange to see nothing of the article's original topic in the revised and moved version. The original one belabored elementary points to an excruciating degree and contained simple mathematical errors, but it still had a valid point, even if it wasn't clear that it was worth a Wikipedia article. But it was worth at least being stated briefly somewhere in some Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Now I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are tactics like these even legal? I mean changing the topic of the discussion of an ADF this drastically? I feel bewildered. I am assuming good faith here, but I find this development really shocking and unexpected.TeamQuaternion (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Next, we need some concrete examples from the cited book, Visual Complex Analysis. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article at its current state. The pruning and new diagram by Michael Hardy have given a very good result which conveys the point of the original in a comprehensible (and correct) manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yowza! Above we have everything from an f-bombs to a photograph... To be totally honest, this discussion is difficult enough that were I an admin, I could not imagine closing as anything but "no consensus"; however, editors are making active good faith efforts at improvement and by and large we should give them further opportunity to do so beyond the week long AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a good article in here trying to get out. Cardamon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silliest edit summary in a while: "Removing OR. This "method" does not work for most parabolas. Try doing this with 0.75(x – 7)^2 + 5 and you will see that the roots can only be approximated. Prove me wrong". This is childish. To call a method "visual" or "graphical" is to say it's intended to give approximations, not exact answers. To say it "only approximates" the answers is to say that it works, not that it doesn't. Likewise to get the real x-intercepts in cases where they exist, by looking at the graph, is to get approximations. To use a calculator or a slide rule is to get approximations. (Even in cases where a calculator gives an exact answer, it doesn't tell you that that's what it is; you have to use your head.) This was by the same person who claimed this method in a certain case gives 7 ±0.235i. He claimed accuracy to the nearest thousandth! Childish. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Please apologise. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I've never, ever seen "A clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Please apologize" lead to an apology. My conclusion is that it's not a very diplomatic (read: effective) way of making civility happen. Just sayin' -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RANDY. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know something of math, but am rusty, as it turns out. Are you saying that I am not "allowed" to challenge this OR/HowTo/non-functional "method"? Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying you're not allowed to do that. What is being suggested is that you shouldn't make a fool of yourself by making repeated adamant assertions about things you don't understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made one mistake, using the method exactly as described. You keep repeating my one mistake, in an attempt to avoid confronting the very precise claims I have made about the sources not using visual methods to find imaginary roots. You still don't get what I am saying; the root is not some approximation, it is a number of the form a + bi, and once the parabola gets at all interesting, you can only estimate b (and poorly). Finding and estimating are not the same thing. If a student turned in a result like "about 2.6", would they receive points? No. A root is defined precisely; a root (or a zero) of a complex-valued function ƒ is a member x of the ___domain of ƒ such that ƒ(x) vanishes at $x$ Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - How a student would be graded for writinng "about 2.6" depends on what the question is. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed the directions, made a graph, and zoomed in. That's what happens. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "use your head", what you really mean is at some point you have to use the quadratic (or a version of the quadratic) to find out what the roots are, with this graphical method intervenes. Once you make the inverted parabola, you have to fall back on algebraic methods to find out where it crosses the x-axis. Therefore this methods is just a more complex way to force yourself to use the quadratic. Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrical methods may be used - see compass and straightedge constructions for details. In practise, one might use tools like a set square to perform operations such as finding the abscissa. On a graphical calculator, there are equivalent functions or techniques. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that this method is not constructable. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. And "OR". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now permanently laid to rest the "OR" worries. Could we now turn to the other issues? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter falsehood. And how to you plan to overcome the plain fact that it is HOW TO? Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing to overcome. It's clearly not a "how to". It identifies a mathematical fact. Like any mathematical fact, it can be used as a "how to". It can also used in other ways; it can be relied on in a proof. And how can you say it's an "utter falsehood" that the OR claim is laid to rest? The cited source describes exactly this content. Abductive, why does someone like you, who repeatedly loudly advertises his ineptitude at even routine secondary-school math, insist being so involved in this discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because you keep insulting me. Because I am not as inept as you think. Because I am not the only one who has said this article is not appropriate. You have failed to address the problems here or on the talk page, and instead just keep repeating your claim that the OR issue is laid to rest. I, one the other hand, am making much more specific claims about the invalidity of using the sources provided, claims which you do not directly address. I have repeatedly asked anybody to use this method to find some roots for some every so slightly more comlicated parabolas, and nobody has risen to that challenge. If you are so good at math, how come you are using verbal methods to shout down my "pitiful" mathematical ones? Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did go through finding the roots in one of your examples, and reported the results on the talk page. I don't know what your "specific claims" about invalidity are. At one point you mentioned that they use algebra. Is that supposed to be a claim about invalidity? I can only offer guesses of that sort as to what you mean. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A root is a number. This visual method does not give numbers, it gives guesses (in other words, an interval). If a student was told to find the roots, and responded with anything other than the exact numbers, they are just as wrong as somebody who says the answer is "cat" and "dog" are the roots. If you use algebra, the method is a roundabout way of using the quadratic. Picture progamming a computer to find the roots using the visual method. It would have to hunt in the interval, narrow the answer down, and then hunt again. This will require the same or more operators than just solving it algebraically. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Abductive, you are committing several errors: You say algebra will find an exact answer every time. That's not true: that holds only in cases where you know the coefficients exactly. If they are physical measurements, you don't. If you have only the graph, you can approximate the coefficients "visually", and then use algebra to find the roots (also approximately), but if you don't have the coefficients and can only approximate them based on the drawn graph, it's quicker to approximate the non-real roots "visually" using the method described here than to first approximate the coefficients and then use algebra. Secondly, you say students are not given credit for approximate answers. But that depends on what question was asked. Sometimes students are asked to get such approximations using graphs. If I assigned a problem like the ones contemplated here, I'd have students CAREFULLY draw the graphs, then use this method, then write a careful verbal explanation of what they did and how they did it. The next point you seem to miss is that this article explains the relationship between the roots and the graph, and that can be used for other things than numerical work. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That seems to me to wander into the even less likely realm of having a graph but no equation. And it sounds HowTo-ish. But at least you are more understanding of my concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 02:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Um... if you're working from physical measurements, then you'll have a graph, consisting of data points, but no equation. Finding an equation that fits your data points is a big part of applied mathematics, you know. God doesn't tend to give us equations directly from His hand.
        Why do you think your instincts about what's likely, or what's useful, are going to be better than the instincts of actual working mathematicians? How many absurd claims will you make before you start doing your homework on these topics?
        The How-to issue is worth thinking about. However, your other claims... (1) The method does work. (2) The method is used by real mathematicians and real math students. (3) Complex solutions do have concrete physical meanings. (4) Obtaining approximate solutions is useful and does happen in both pure and applied contexts. (5) Having a graph without an equation is as common as dirt; it's how experimental science always works.
        What are you going to claim next, Abductive? I recommend you stick to the "How-to" argument and stop pretending you know what goes on in mathematics. You've made it painfully and repeatedly clear that you don't. Start asking questions instead of making wrong assertions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I haven't been called nasty names in a while, and !voting "keep" here seems to be an efficient way to make that happen.
Seriously, though, this discussion raises an interesting question. I've known this method of locating complex zeros since middle school - where did I learn it? It's not in the College Algebra textbook from which I teach today. Most books at that level that I've seen don't address any kind of geometric understanding of complex numbers; they're treated in an entirely algebraic manner, with no notion of a complex plane sticking out from the page. It's a shame really, because the visual approach probably would help a lot of students. I show fellow grad students this, though, and they've never seen it! Bizarre.
I'd like to see the method extended to roots of cubics... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fellow grad students having never seen it supports the hypothesis that this is Original Research. Policy is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, point 1. Abductive (reasoning) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Abductive, let me help you by summarizing all of your comments on this page: Abductive hardly knows anything about mathematics. Since when are graduate students omniscient? On can also find people with Ph.D.s who've never heard of this. Therefore they shouldn't hear of it, by reading this article, you seem to tell us. The OR claim was silly from the outset and is dead. Leave it alone. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On the talk page of the article I have made a case for why the method doesn't work, and so far you have not responded. I say this is because the method doesn't work without sneaking in some algebra. I have made a case that the sources are being misused, and nobody has responded. Nobody has reponded to the problem of avoiding How-To. Insulting me will not make me go away, but I again ask you to stop. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I did respond. I wrote out a detailed proof that the method works. Your "case for why the method doesn't work" is only a report that you tried it and you did it wrong. It's just a routine high-school homework problem, and you claim did it wrong, without specifics, and professional mathematicians tell you it works and write a proof that it works, and the proof is accessible at a secondary-school level, and you respond that you "have made a case for why the method doesn't work, and so far you have not responded". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my case is that you can't seem to actually use the method to find some roots. I have given two example parabolas and asked for the roots; you have not responded with the roots. Why not? Isn't it easy? Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where are these example parabolas? I'd like to have a shot at it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Never mind, I found it, and solved the problem you posed. I only used a graph and my eyeballs, and I got 6.3 ± 2.3i. The trick was to find a nice, accurate graph - that's easy to do online. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I did it in less than one minute with no algebra, no calculator, no online or otherwise electronic help, just pen and paper, plotting just seven points and estimating the answer visually. For 0.83(x − 6.3)² + 4.4, the imaginary part of the root appeared to be a bit more than 2. There you go. This is trivial. I was doing stuff like this when I was in 7th grade and so was everyone else (except those who don't care about things like this). Abductive, you keep pointing out that Norton & Lotto use algebra, as if that were an objection. Their algebra explains why it is possible to do this sort of visual stuff with no algebra. And if you couldn't, this article would still explain the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots. That is the main point. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your bold text won't steal my thunder. I got there first. :p -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I'm joking[reply]
        My contention is that you aren't "finding" the roots, your're estimating them. If I plug in "a bit more than 2" or "6.3 + 2.3i" into the equation, do I get 0? No. A root is defined as a number x that makes f(x) = 0. Also, none of the sources talk about finding or estimating the roots in this way, and the article contains too much HowTo. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I also note that we have gone from "this method is genius!" to "this method is trivially easy!" during the course of this debate. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I must have missed the part where someone said it's genius. Is the person who said that among those now saying it's trivially easy? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes. The article now states that the method is for approximation—for estimating roots—and not for finding exact ones. Everyone knows that, and nobody disagrees. As for whether someone thought it was "genius", that has nothing to do with anything, unless you're just looking for reasons to criticize people. Personally, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and not to talk about other editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - You wouldn't believe how much mathematics my fellow grad students don't know. They're all younger than I, for one thing, and math education has been changing. The fact that I was taught it by a middle-school teacher inclines me to think it must be written down in a book somewhere. I suspect it's the newer textbooks that have cut a lot of material that used to be standard. I'm attending a mathematics conference right now, working with a researcher in complex analysis who went to school before I did. I'm going to ask him about this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not OR because the first two external links show the method (the third may do as well, but I'm not sufficiently patient to read it all). Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the second source, but not the first, seem to resemble this visual method, with a crucial exception; the authors do not claim to be able to read the roots off the graph; they have to use regular algebraic methods to get the roots. The other sources rely on algebra also. Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Graphical methods of root finding is clearly a well covered subject, although one that possibly might be duplicated on Wikipedia. OR issues surrounding the finding of complex roots can be, should be and in fact are beeing hashed out as part of the ordinary editorial process. Taemyr (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work improving the article, though I generally preferred the original version. As Giano advises we should write articles as though we are addressing a bright 14 year old with no knowledge of the subject. Maths is best learnt by doing math, and to facilitate that we need a more beginner friendly presentation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Abductive's edit summary "the even less likely realm of having a graph but no equation": That's not unlikely at all. Physical measurements give you a graph but no equation. Physical measurements happen all the time. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why whould you need the imaginary roots of a physical measurement? Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy cow, are you seriously asking this question? Do you not know that imaginary solutions have extremely concrete physical meanings in, for example, electrical engineering? Do you not know that complex roots have extremely concrete physical meanings when talking about systems that display simple harmonic oscillation? Do you really imagine that complex roots are somehow apart from physical reality? Wow. No more, just: Wow.
    In parallel to your statement above, your argument has changed from "you can't actually use this method", to "What are complex (or as you call them, "imaginary", although none of the examples we've looked at have pure imaginary roots) good for, anyway?" Wow. I'm sorry, Abductive, but that's sad.
    Let me clue you in a bit: When a system of differential equations has as an eigenvalue (6.3 + 2.3i) that means the system evolves by growing at a rate of e^6.3, while oscillating at a rate of 2pi/2.3. I was kind of assuming you knew that — my bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, excuse me for not knowing everything. Nevertheless, even if everything you have said is valid, I fail to see how it is not pure HowTo advice, and I would like to see a reliable source from the electrical engineering literature that suggests approximating roots in this way. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're excused. Nobody's born knowing this stuff. I was just surprised, given your level of participation so far in this debate. Sorry for my presumption. Regarding the HowTo argument. I don't disagree. The only points I've made here are that the method does work, and that complex solutions do have physical meaning. I, like you, would like to see a book that details this method, partly just because I'm annoyed that it's not taught much these days. As a math teacher, I wish the textbooks covered it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So, no sources then. Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        None from me, at this time. I need to ask my handy pocket professor on the morrow; I'll let you know what he says. Again, I'm confident that this used to be taught (from books, even!). Everything's been dumbed down in the last few decades. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I urge people to try and understand; Wikipedia articles are not built on truth, they are built on reliable sources. As I have stated, this article twists the sources on their heads to claim that they use graphical methods to approximate (not find) the roots, when the articles are only using the graphs to show why the roots are well-behaved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best smerge to whatever suitable article there maybe. Wikipedia is not a textbook. WP:GNG does not require us to keep every single article with at least two sources, or every single paragraph with at least two refs can become its own article. ~~This is such an elementary exposition of an imprecise method (or methods) that I have difficulty believing that any student of mathematics will have any use for it.~~ We are not writing for mathematicians, of course, but we are not writing for 12-year-olds, either. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not primarily for the purpose of graphically estimating the roots; it's for the purpose of explaining the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'll assume for the moment that the title of the article does not mean what it says. Why, exactly, is this information not in, say, parabola or quadratic equation or quadratic function? Why does it need its own article? I see no compelling reason to have a standalone article here. A couple paragraphs, at the most, in the appropriate article would suffice. Tim Song (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains information that is not in the articles you mentioned because some of it would not be relevant there. The information is relevant to the title of this article, and it may be expanded. A large number of people have claimed that the material is OR and presumably have been unable to locate the concepts in textbooks. Yet, the material is sourced (and so is not OR). It's interesting to hear the article described as "elementary" after some previous comments that it was wrong, and mathematicians really do spend time considering graphical or geometrical solutions that may appear redundant given an algebraic alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Notice that the title of the article is actually now Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots, and that some of its material would not fit under quadratic function. I'd like to comment on the accuracy of graphical methods like this. Typically, it would be 2 or 3 significant figures, if done on paper by a skilful person with some sort of drafting tools. With practice, using a method like this to guessitimate the answer just by looking at a graph might be accurate to about 10%. With a graphics program, this method could be accurate to many decimal places. Finally, yes we do write for intelligent 12 year olds, among others. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Michael Hardy's suggestion that this is a WP:COATRACK "for the purpose of explaining the geometric relationship between the parabola and the locations of the roots" (emphasis mine). My point is that we are not writing a kid's encyclopedia. But I guess I'm not the best judge for that. Tim Song (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim: "I have difficulty believing that any student of mathematics will have any use for it" Have you ever taught algebra? This is an excellent method, and I teach it to algebra students. Approximating solutions by looking at a graph is an important skill that I personally use in my graduate study - quadratic equations come up in all sorts of contexts (differential equations, for example), and we often find ourselves looking at approximate graphs. Simply knowing the sign of the real and imaginary parts of a solution can yield important qualitative information about the nature of a solution - e.g., whether an oscillation will be damped, or grow exponentially! (When you're driving across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the famous video, this sort of thing matters.)

If you want to know whether a method will be useful for math students, why not ask some math teachers? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's useful. Heck, I know that, I even use it myself sometimes. Does not mean it is entitled to its own article. I've struck that part of the comment, happy? But the title is ..."of finding ... roots" (emphasis mine). Determining the sign or approximate value of the root does not sound like "finding" the root to me. Tim Song (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moving away from this specific article, some uses of graphical methods are:

For many people, seeing a problem and its solution helps the understanding.
If for some reason analytical solutions or numerical methods are not available, graphical methods can be very useful. This was more important historically (before computers and handheld calculators became common) than it is now. Note: Wikipedia does care about history.
They can be used for "sanity checks" if one suspects a malfunction, a bug in a program or a calculation error. In this regard, the ability to guesstimate a graphical method just by looking at a plot is useful in catching gross errors, because it can be fast. One way to gain such an ability is by learning graphical methods. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 10 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. Many arguments for retaining the page cite the fact that its existance is confirmed, but don't address the notability concern. Therefore while the keep votes outweigh the deletes, I see no strong consensus either way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0 A.D. (game)

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

Contested prod. The article is about an unreleased computer game, in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Its sources do not meet WP:RS (being largely to the game's developer), and as such do not establish the subject's notability. This is a no-prejudice nom; an article may be suitable when/if the game is released and has had some independent coverage. EyeSerene^talk 08:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst it's in development, is still exists today, you just can't compile and play the full thing. Also, given that it's open-source, it's more available then another game by a regular developer, in that you could probably play parts of it. That said, it could use with some more independent sources. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the only WP:N-qualifying coverage (and only independent source) presented is the GameDev interview linked to under ELs. As always, I prefer multiple sources. If this is the only such coverage, then the game can perhaps be mentioned in our "List Of" articles instead, with no predjudice against restoring the article if more coverage is achieved at a later date. Marasmusine (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - CRYSTAL doesn't really apply to a work whose existence is not in doubt. This leaves only the challenge to notability, which is valid, but the current article detail suggests that this is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. +sj+ 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The notability issue means that even if this game had been released, there is currently insufficient WP:RS coverage to write a standalone article about it. Having said that, I wouldn't object to a merge provided that a suitable parent article exists - at present I can't see where this information would go. The game is already included in List of open source video games, and Wildfire Games seems to suffer from a similar lack of reliable sources. EyeSerene^talk 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is free software, surely the screenshots are free too? We have the video on Commons (correctly, it would seem) but why are these screenshots being uploaded as non-free? If they ARE non-free, there are far too many of them... J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, especially since it seems it will never be released. As Eyeserene also higlights, there is a distinct lack of reliable sources to support the article's existence. Skinny87 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per AlanI, Sj -- mkrohn (talk) 22:35, 7 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) 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Zubedi

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

Lack of notability. He has only written one book. I would have put {{prod}} but it was contested. Joe407 (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe407, I hope this is the deletion discussion page for teh article Bilal Zubedi. I wanted to enquire why this page has been nominated for speedy deletion. It should stay on because the individual is an author who has a book published and selling out there. It would be very kind of you to reconsider the act of deleting this article because through wikipedia more people can access information about the author. Please let me know your reasons and what can be done.I would be grateful for your assitance in saving this page and letting it stay. (OTRTA (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You want to delete the page because the author has written one book. Is there a criteria to how many books an author must have written to have a page on wikipedia."Lack of notability", the author will be noted more with a wiki page. Please let the page stay on. Thank You. (Bj786 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

No, the nominator is saying that while he has written one book, this isn't sufficient notability. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Ironholds. Please read WP:BIO. In short it says that an article about a person must domonstrate that the person is a notable (an important) personality. There are many ways that notability can be established. A person with important achivements such as Nelson Mandela, even if he had only one book, would deserve an article. This is due to his acheivements, not due to his book. A different path to notability is a person who has a number of books that have sold lots of copies. Here, his notability is that he is an author. For example, Tom Wolfe.
I hope this clarified things. Joe407 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just a free site where anything can be added and edited. I would still ask you to reconsider for one article won't hurt. Thank You (OTRTA (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, it isn't. We have standards, and articles that don't fulfil those standards will be deleted. We can't let one article through, because if we let one article through there's no logical reason why the next article shouldn't be let through, and the next, making our standards completely useless. Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 6 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) 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Time (2008 movie)

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

The subject does not seem to meet WP:N and WP:V. There are no independent reliable sources in the article and I can't find any either. Prolog (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references. There is a link to an independent "Traktor Królewski" magazine as a source. The magazine is not connected with the creators of the film in any way and its a reliable publication. In the article I even included a link to the archived issue of the magazine that contains the review and an interview with the director of the film. This source and links were there from the very moment when the article was created. The article in question is in Polish and you didn't list a proficiency in that language in your profile. Therefore I don't think that you should qualify the sources for the article without at least fluent knowledge of the Polish language.(Wilhelm Klave (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but Google Translate indicates that the magazine is run by students and not by professional journalists, and the circulation is very small (250 in January 2006, 925 in February 2009). I think the interview could still be used as a source, but it does not establish the notability of the topic. Prolog (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film does not meet any of the criteria set out in WP:FILMNOT. I attempted to search for multiple instances of significant coverage in realiable sources to see if the could qualify for WP:N but I have not been able to locate any such sources. The subject of the article appears to be an amateur creation with little encyclopedic value that is unlikely to become notable but I have no prejudice towards recreation of the article should it ever meet notability criteria. The SILKRAT group that created the video seems to be a group of amateur filmmakers whose main (or only) achievements have been to upload their self-made videos to their own YouTube Channel. Most of the article, including the plot section (even though, per WP:FILMPLOT, it can be sourced from the film itself) seems to consist of a large degree of original research, eg. claiming that a certain character "is based on Melissa "Missy" Jenkins, a survivor of the 1997 school shooting in Paducah" etc. It is a synthesis of previously published material used to reach a conclusion that has not been explicitly stated by any source provided. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. This is a non-notable Youtube movie. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 3 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) 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hela metal

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

The subject does not seem to meet WP:N and WP:V. The sources in the article are unreliable and/or do not contain any significant coverage (and are used very dubiously as well, as if just thrown in there somewhere). Nothing on Google News and there are no reliable sources among the few Google hits either. This seems to be just another case where a (barely notable) band claims to have invented a new genre. Prolog (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per comments on the talk page when it was PRODed, At least one of the links is to a Sri Lankan newspaper, and if you search the Sri Lankan edition of Google for "Hela Metal" (with quotes) you get around [2380 results], about 8 times the number of hits as you do in the US version, so I think great care needs to be taken in using search results as an indicator of notabillity. Clearly this subject is going to be more notable in its home country than elsewhere. It needs improvement, and I've already tried to move the article in the right direction to assist the original editor, but I think there is enough 'buzz' in the Sri Lankan results to suggest it is a genuine genre in Sri Lanka and should be given time for better editing and sourcing rather than just deleting outright. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the talk page do not address the issues for which the article was prodded and nominated for deletion. If there is no coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability are not satisfied. And if there is no significant coverage, the requirements for notability are not satisfied. The newspaper article contains absolutely nothing about this "genre" and the metal webzine interviews are about the band speaking about themselves. Prolog (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the PROD stated "No proof that this is a real genre. All sources are blogs. Google gives you 302 hits, the majority being just random words that happened to be in that order. ", so I addressed that the first ref is a newspaper and if you use the correct version of Google you get 8 times as many results, so yes the talk page post did address the concerns given in the PROD. The ref shows a local newspaper using "Hela Metal" to describe a band, so while it isn't much use as a cite for copy in the article, it does give evidence of the genre existing, as indeed do most of the other results coming back on google. The article definitely needs substantial improvement, but deletion is not cleanup.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's bad state is not a valid reason for keeping it. The problem is the subject, of which an article that would meet Wikipedia's standards can apparently not be written. Instead of concentrating on the prod, you should be addressing the issues brought up in this discussion. The only way this article is going to be kept is if someone finds significant coverage in reliable sources. Terms used to describe a band do not classify as genres or as Wikipedia article subjects. Per WP:NEO, sources specifically about the term are needed, not just ones which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Prolog (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the Prod issues as you raised them. I still think there is enough here to give the author time to improve the article and find sources. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "correct" version of Google. Using a localized version will get you the same hits as the English version, only in a different order. Even with your link, it's less than 300 hits, with the majority still being random (Swedish) words that happened to be in that order. Go past page 4, and you will see. You might have clicked to see similar/several hits from one page, which will turn 9 hits into 600 hits. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I click that link (in the UK) I get in excess of 2500 results, so clearly we are not going via the same routines. Not sure why that is, google is odd sometimes!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having gone to about page 10 on the results, only a handful (less than 10 total) have been random Swedish words. The overwhelming majority are discussing this topic. Mostly in unusable forums, blogs, etc, but there is quite a bit of it, which I why I said there is a buzz. Clearly there are a bunch of people in Sri Lanka who beleive this to be a genre.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are 2 things to take away from the news article linked. 1. It's only a small mention, and not about hela metal in general. 2. It says "Featuring the likes of Hela metal band Funeral in Heaven, ...", with band being in singular, meaning that only one of the bands self-identifies under in this term. Also, if you use Google to search within this news site, you will get 1 hit only, which means that there is no buzz! With that source disputed, it leaves us with a couple of blogs. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and previous delete comment. Fair Deal (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Canniba loki 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Music of Sri Lanka as a small section of "Record music". We know there are influential heavy metal bands in Sri Lanka such as Stigmata, and the term "Hela metal" isn't a WP:MADEUP term, though it doesn't have enough currency for a stand-alone article. Fences&Windows 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:MADEUP. No reliable sources at all (webzines, blogs and Metal Archives don't count, so would need removing at any rate) and a pitiful 2000 odd Google hits isn't helping to establish notability, even if WP:GHITS were a valid argument, which it is not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP doesn't apply. It says "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up." But Hela Metal isn't a term just used by a bunch of kids in school, Sri Lankan journalists have used it. Google hits are totally irrelevant, you should realise that Sri Lankan sources are likely to be more poorly covered on the web, see WP:Systematic bias. By all means argue that there are insufficient reliable sources to show notability, but don't throw in invalid arguments. Fences&Windows 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you really want further reasons for its deletion, try WP:NEO. There are no reliable sources that discuss this supposed genre in any depth whatsoever, and if Sri Lankan sources are more poorly covered then that's just back luck for the article. A genre consisting of one (very, very) borderline notable band is no genre at all; Raaksha may well also be referred to as hela metal, but are (thus far) not notable, and a genre of two would still fail a basic WP:N check. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one band that is talked about as being a "Hela metal" band. There is no proof about this being a popular phenomenon anywhere, aside from Funeral in Heaven. It is just like how Nile calls their music "Ithyphallic death metal", yet there is no wikipedia article of that "genre" and they are the only band that has been described as such on a non-rare basis. Also, the article does have repetition problems. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just not true. Raaksha are also called Hela Metal.[39] It's easy to make sweeping statements to back up arguments, but it doesn't make them correct. Fences&Windows 14:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable news source even uses the expression. Thus the type of music is notable enough to be mentioned. Dream Focus 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is there significant coverage of the genre? Newspapers using an expression isn't enough to show notability. Fences&Windows 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guys, I looked through the Sri Lankan Google returns; the term is only found in association with the bands Raaksha and Funeral in Heaven, and only in blogs. 100% of the rest are random combinations of the words hela and metal in Scandinavian languages. I cannot see this as a sound basis for an article. Abductive (reasoning) 16:27, 11 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gitz

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

The result was Speedily deleted as G3 vandalism (and a hint of A7). Mfield (Oi!) 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz

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

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Nice doggy (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a pure dictionary definition, and so not suitable for Wikipedia. Additionally, I can find no evidence that the neologism defined would meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, "Gitz" is used as a surname and "flash gitz" (variously capitalised) appears to be a term used in one or more wargaming games, although I couldn't work out what it means. All this adds up to a transwiki being inaproproate, hence my recommendation to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - slang neologism. Lacks reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. Also note all edits by article author are vandalism. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 4 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) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Shi'a fundamentalism

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

This article is not written in proper encyclopedic form, nor is its title a proper one. Furthermore, it appears to be an opinion, original research, and/or a soapbox article. Lhynard (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like a content fork. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the nominator's excellent reasoning, it is also a dictionary definition, and I do not see that this is a plausible search term that might require a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:58, 3 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. per clear consensus JForget 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not redirected the page to Demi Lovato. The Dallas Levato was orphaned and wasn't linked, actually not even mentionned in Demi's article. Maybe you can make mention of Dallas on Demi's article. JForget 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Lovato

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

This actress lacks notability. She's only done a few bit parts that were barely more than being an extra. Eeekster (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to uncover reliable sources to establish Dallas Lovato's notability. Her younger sister, Demi Lovato, is notable, but she isn't. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her only IMDb-listed credits are roles as "Dancer" in a television episode and "Girl" in another episode. This does not suggest notability. As a remote second choice, redirect to her sister Demi Lovato if there is more interest in her than I have been able to detect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bit parts & being the sister of two notable actresses does not cobble together enough to pass WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She only has minor roles and notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 3 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. JForget 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pull Me Under

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

WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words.

A procedural note, hatted by the author.

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a batch with ten other Dream Theater songs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under. The closing admin, user:SilkTork, concluded that since the multiple listing was complex, the nominated articles agreed as the least notable should be redirected, and the rest should be relisted individually. Per this and my 21:56, 12 August comment at the previous nomination, I have redirected The Silent Man, Hollow Years, Home, A Right of Passage, and Forsaken, as there appeared to be rough consensus to delete them, and am individually relisting Pull Me Under, Take the Time, Another Day, Lie, Through Her Eyes, and Constant Motion

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the most recognised and highest-charting single by a very notable band is clearly going to be sourceable and expandable - although I agree it's quite waffly and unsourced at the moment. If all these rogue Dream Theater singles are really causing you such a problem, I don't have any particular issue with redirecting it with history intact for now, but I very much doubt deletion is the answer here - even if the single was entirely non-notable it would be better to redirect as a likely search term. ~ mazca ^talk 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the bizarre ending alone (see the article, it "simply stops, mid-note,") in a major release makes it pretty notable. New listeners will get to the end and wonder if their CD/MP3 is damaged, inspiring a search to learn more about the song (this is what happened to me, anyway). If people want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable. -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an astonishingly flawed theory of notability. "If people"--in context, necessarily read anyone, since there's no way to quantify demand--"want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable"? Really? A subject is notable simply because it is conceivable that someone might want to know about it? That is not the standard of WP:GNG or any other guideline. I have never heard of it, and it directly contradicts the text, purpose, spirit, indeed concept of the notability policy.

Nor is it true, by the way, that it "stops mid-note." Count it out. That section is in common time, and the last note of the recording is the fourth note of a bar of four. How is that "stopping mid-note"? Come to think of it, since there is no theoretical limit on the number of times the beat can be divided, the concept that music can ever stop "mid-note" is nonsense. Even if the band continued to play three 64th notes into the next bar and then stopped, that would be stopping mid-bar -- and only then on the dubious assumption that we'd say the time signature remained in 4/4 and just stopped, rather than changing to 3/64 for the last bar of the song or writing it off as rubato. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Article claims the single charted on a lesser Billboard chart, but Billboard shows the song as never charting with them. [40]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chart position is sourced in the article to Allmusic, which is generally considered a reliable source here; and the fact that Pull Me Under actually charted reasonably highly is a commonly-cited fact in many Dream Theater biographies. Are you entirely confident in the completeness of the new Billboard website, particularly in respect of lesser charts from 17 years ago? ~ mazca ^talk 20:09, 25 August 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) 01:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable taking Billboards word over what charted on their own charts. There are also a lot of editors that do not feel that charting on the lesser charts is really charting. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, some archive information on the Billboard.com site has not been accessable since the site redseign. So allmusic is the best source for the charting information at this point. And in this case, the article contains a link to an article on Billboard's site that confirms the chart position per allmusic. And the Mainstream Rock Chart is hardly a "lesser chart". Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 04:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reference from a Billboard feature article that confirms the chart listing of the song. There have got to be more references easily found due to its inclusion in Guitar Hero as well. I don't believe that notability is an issue. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, under NSONGS, notability is not the only criterion. Assuming notability, what's your argument (implicit in your keep vote is that you have one) for why a standalone article is justified?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mazca made a compelling case above, and agree with it. I also believe that the recent references I have added show that the song itself is notable through its being linked to the band more than 10 years after its release. We obviously have a notable artist here, and this is the one song by which they are most known. The now sourced fact of being a top ten song on the mainstream rock tracks chart seems to meet WP:NSONGS, although I don't do enough editing in the music area to know what consensus is regarding the definition of a "significant" chart. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The single charted, so meets WP:NSONGS. There are multiple reliable sources included in the article other than just the chart position, so meets WP:N. There is enough information in the article as it stands to warrant a standalone article, although sourcing could be improved. Not seeing any reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Heavy MTV rotation and charting is enough to keep it notable. ken20008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken20008 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 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. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleAlley

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

Website where people post articles. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does give evidence of notability under WP:WEB, where it states
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."
The Google Books citations, of which there are several, cite ArticleAlley.Com as a source. Each of these books were published by independent sources. 34pin6 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tend to agree with 34pin6. It's probably borderline, but okay. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eliminate the Alexa rank and the other one, as well as company website, and you have the Google Books. On there, it seems to have a good number of resources that mention them, but they don't seem to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that I can tell. I could be wrong, but a cursory examination of the (albeit indirect) sources seems to lead me to this conclusion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rebuttal. I think you're splitting hairs here. The fact that the site has been noted so often, bespeaks of its noteworthiness and, by extension, its notability. See this statement by User:Uncle G, where this admin says that,
  "The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable."
  from user:Uncle G, posted by 34pin6 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could very well be splitting hairs and not knowing I'm doing so. =) I'm pretty much using a straight interp of the notability guidelines here. In any event, I've poked User:Uncle G on the subject and am hoping for his note. It's this that will potentially change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennisthe2's point is that there's a difference between a book that simply points to a page on a WWW site when discussing some other subject, as (say) ISBN 9780470222799 page 219 does, and a book that actually talks about this subject. Here's another thing that I should probably write up one day: A Google search result is not a source citation. What you have in the article is a Google search result, from which the article is drawing an original conclusion made firsthand by a Wikipedia editor, moreover. There's is not, actually, a citation of a specific book anywhere in the article at hand as it currently stands.
    If you go back to my page that you pointed to and read from the top, you'll find non-triviality discussed. What is needed for notability is sources that are actually about the subject, that document it in depth. (In Wikipedia:Notability, you'll find this concept expressed as "significant coverage".) The aforecited book isn't about the subject, for example. It doesn't say one single thing about this subject at all. There's not one single fact on that page, about this subject, that can be taken and added to this article.
    If you want to change Dennisthe2's mind — and xe is a reasonable editor whose mind can be changed — show that multiple published works, independent of the subject and from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, document this subject in depth. It's that last part that you aren't addressing. A published work that simply mentions this subject in passing, or that doesn't even give any facts about this subject at all, is not contributing to documenting the subject in depth. Find some sources that do, cite them, and you'll make a case that can potentially change Dennisthe2's mind. Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence whatsoever of any significant coverage by anything remotely WP:RS that I can find. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test for why Alexa, Google Books and other rankings are irrelevant for this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few references that (might?) be used to make a rebuttal of Flowanda's/Uncle G's notability challenge

Washington Post mention of articlealley.com
Philly.Com, blog commenter cites articlealley.com
Business Exchange, subsidiary of BusinessWeek, lists an Article Alley article in its "Other useful pages, Web sites and tools" reference section

Will these help my case? 34pin6 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have another question, albeit a slight digression. But its answer would help me to understand a bit more the notability issue. In my mind, there is no substantive difference between ArticlesBase website and ArticleAlley. They are the same type of site, both have lots of mentions. The only difference I can see, is that articles base has more Google News mentions than ArticleAlley. However, both are widely known and highly trafficked. It seems to me a bit myopic to only view WP:RS as the chief criteria for notability, in this particular case. It also seems to me that, lots of people - authors, bloggers, journalists - citing ArticleAlley, has to count for something - regardless of whether one can find tons of reliable sources, in the strict, Wikipedia sense of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34pin6 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these won't work. The WA Post link refers to a bad search result, the second one is a comment in an article about AIG, and the third one is a link to something on ArticleAlley. All of these have links to it, but a link to it is not the subject of it. This comes back to mention versus subject - in no case presented are these articles actually about ArticleAlley, they only point to articles stored on it. To put it forthright, we need articles about ArticleAlley as a subject, and we have been presented with nothing of the sort, and in summary, if it only mentions it, it's not an article about it. If you can find articles (yes, please, note the plural here) about ArticleAlley (not merely mentioning, but actually discussing in detail), then we will have a winner. Conversely, if you can't turn up anything, then we will need to delete. Please, please, PLEASE review the notability guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more notes. One, please see also WP:OSE - yes, there's ArticlesBase, but it appears to have other resources backing this, aside from just mentions. If I'm wrong, then it, too, comes up here to AFD. Two, WP:RS may seem myopic, but we have these standards in place for varying reasons. Granted, we have WP:IAR, but we also have WP:WIARM as an explanation to it. This is one of these things that we can't ignore the rules for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a tough one. I just got through scouring all my Internet marketing, SEO and Web design books, for ArticleAlley citations. Found a couple, but still trivial. Also scoured Library Cat, News Cat, Google Scholar, and Google News archives. I did find these news mentions:

News mentions of ArticleAlley, 2006-2008. The last one I translated from Hebrew to English; it mentions ArticleAlley as one of the best article marketing directories - as do many of the others - but still the citations do not constitute "significant coverage" in Dennis The Tiger's sense. ugh!

How would I fare with a merge to the article marketing article? 34pin6 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Look at these particular references to ArticleAlley in Google Books:

Now, while I agree that most of these are what you would call trivial mentions. However, Example 2 includes a screenshot of an ArticleAlley web page, in a chapter about article marketing. I'm sure that at least a few of these books goes into some detail on how to submit articles to ArticleAlley, as well as other sites.

So, it seems to me that - taken as a whole - these citations, descriptions and this screenshot prove that ArticleAlley is considered somewhat of an authority in the arena of article marketing - regardless of whether each individual mention is "trivial".

34pin6 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked them all. Still no dice. In most of them, you have a note to look at ArticleAlley - anything from a direct statement to go there all the way to the web address for AA. The screenshots in there unfortunately don't help - those are for point of illustration. In a nutshell - and Dream Focus, pay attention here - these are still not books about ArticleAlley, they merely mention or point to them. We still need something discussing ArticleAlley. Also, pay attention to WP:WEB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these books consider it a legitimate reference for information, that makes it clearly notable. Do you think various unrelated books would mention it otherwise? Plus you have news sources as well. Dream Focus 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, the news mentions don't meet notability because they are only news mentions. WP:N does not account for news mentions, it accounts for news subjects, and this is not something that appears to be the general subject of a news article - only a mention. There is a significant difference between subject and mention, thus the emphasis that I'm inserting. Unrelated books merely mentioning it don't enter into the picture for this purpose - I've already covered that part. The problem remains that there's nothing really about the site in particular as per WP:WEB, so for all intents and purposes, yes, I do, indeed, not only think, but ardently declare with no personal doubt that various unrelated books would mention it, and such a mention would still not make it notable as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. You are welcome to discuss these guidelines at the talk page for the guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines were never passed in a general vote, nor by a reasonable number of people. They were slipped in without many people noticing, and defended by those who use them as an excuse to mass delete articles they don't like. The question of AFD is whether you believe something is notable, and meet the policies, not whether you believe they meet the guidelines, since a guideline is nothing more than a suggestion, not a law. Dream Focus 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every guideline Wikipedia is there for reason. There are some of them I don't like either but I still see the reason for them. The notability guidelines are there in part to preserve people's privacy. They're also there to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Finally, they are there to keep up the general quality of the articles; people generally are unwilling to collaborate to improve an article about something they've never heard of, and they can't improve it if there is no reliable information on the subject.--RDBury (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, there was no vote because we're not a democracy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books prove its notable. Dream Focus 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was speedied A7 last week, and 34pin6 had commented to the deleting admin. This was brought back after a speedy delete. ~~Forgive me for sounding like I'm not assuming good faith, but it makes me wonder if there's some conflict of interest going here.~~ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at by conflict of interest, but I will say that I worked damn hard on this article, doing my best to follow the notability and reliability rules, etc. I happen to like ArticleAlley, have used it for years, and think it's worthy of inclusion. Is that a conflict of interest?? The comment I placed on the first admin who prodded the article upset me, yes. Because, I felt s/he was not following civility and proper procedure, I felt s/he dind't even take any time whatsoever to read the article or look at my citations, because, I've seen a LOT of Wikipedia articles with NO reliable sources at LEAST get a proper AfD hearing. So, yes, I was upset, and I told the admin so. I did not attack the admin, I wasn't crude, and if you look at the comment you'll see the comment was restored. I merely stated that admins aren't dictators (though some seem to think they are) and that they, just like we, have to follow "the rules" too. 34pin6 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does alleviate my concerns for COI - my apologies for this, 34. I recognize there is an effort, but the effort needs to turn another direction to find things that, as I stated, are about ArticleAlley, not merely pointers to it. See my comment below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a complete outsider to this, I don't follow your train of logic. I have found on wikipedia, that in most cases, unless you know something for certain, it is better not to speculate. A more established veteran would probably be screaming bloody murder by such accusations. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the google books seem to seal the deal for me. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it's cited does not mean that it is notable. We need independent sources giving indepth coverage of the source. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikip, the books appear to be nn self-published internet marketing ebooks that include Article Alley in very similar lists of links, but nothing remotely resembling "significant coverage". You need to provide better justification than just a general "keep" and think it should stick. 34pin6, please don't be discouraged...it may just be you created this article before the website could meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Flowanda | Talk 03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO CLOSING ADMIN - if the conclusion is delete, I'd recommend a WP:USERFY of the article for user:34pin6 to allow for further refinement and later review. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the cited sources are usable for notability. To break it down: The Article Ally ref. is self-published. Alexa is raw data. I've seen people try to use this kind of thing before, there can be all sorts of factors that influence these numbers and interpreting them can be tricky, even if it seems it's not. CrunchBase is a combination of raw data and user content, the first was just covered and the second disqualifies it from being reliable. Finally, Google Books just lists some books where it's being used as a reference or it has a brief mention. The quote at the start of this discussion says "... content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." and let me emphasize the words "the subject of". Someone could a book that uses the Picayune Daily Mailer as a source about something that happened in Picayune County, but that doesn't make the Picayune Daily Mailer notable in itself. You need someone to write the book (or at least a chapter) about the Picayune Daily Mailer for it to become notable. The same goes for Article Ally, you need to produce an article or a book about the web site for it to be evidence of notability. Brief mention, use as a reference, and use as an example don't count. I wouldn't make such a big deal about this but there several people here who seem to think the Google Books result is a clincher. It's not if you read the guidelines carefully. Chances are if something is notable then someone will have made a note of it that satisfies the guidelines; if someone can find it then they should add it to the article and mention it here.--RDBury (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the three main sections in the article, two are completely unreferenced. Of the few references the article does have, most aren't considered to be reliable. But mostly, I can't—and nobody else seems to be able to either—find any sources that are about ArticleAlley. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Week Keep. This is a tough one because I think it comes down to the difference between "the spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law". Yes, the letter says delete because most of the mentions are what you might call "trivial". However, the spirit of the notability requirement is that a subject is notable by virtue of having received significant coverage in a reliable, third-party publications.

Now, it seems clear that one or two, or even three, trivial mentions of a subject in Google Books, would not be significant coverage, but rather would be trivial. However, if several authors of several different books - each book relating to the subject of Internet marketing or SEO or some other recognized industry - all mention this one website, then that means a good deal more than a trivial citation here or there.

Put another way: There is certainly a qualitative difference in the worthiness of a source that only one or two people cite in passing, compared to one where 10 or 20 people cite it in passing. In the latter case, it is clear the subject has penetrated the mind of a certain collective substantially more than in the former case.

This appears to me to be the crux of the dispute. After all, "significant coverage" is a bit subjective in itself. And I'm certain we could all come up with a list of subjects about which no one has written elaborately or exhaustively, but which we would nonetheless consider as notable. Artemis84 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is defined perfectly well in Wikipedia guidelines. The problem with all these citations you keep bringing up is they don't contain any information about the subject; you can't use them to write an article. Keep in mind also that ArticleAlly is basically a warehouse for articles written by outside people, so if ArticleAlly appears in a cite then the it's really the person who wrote the article that's being cited and not ArticleAlly which happens to be in the web address.--RDBury (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Is this the future of any AfD flagged by Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron members? Tag teaming is not an effective or attractive approach, especially when the article is clearly nn. Flowanda | Talk 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No discussion at all in any of the gbooks results. There is nothing to build an article with here. Quantpole (talk) 11:32, 11 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) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paired journalism

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

Non-notable neologism, prod declined. Entry itself notes that this was coined only in March. Zero Google news hits, one or two relevant Google web hits but none that look independent of the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not for things made up one day.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an essay (therefore against the policies) on a non-relevant topic (therefore once again against the policies). McMarcoP (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to suggest the term is used by anyone. Google shows nothing. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 3 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 to Private military company . JForget 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor combatant

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

This isn't an article, it's a one-sided opinion piece. I would suggest merging it with Private military company, but this is so POV that there wouldn't be a lot to merge. ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term comes from a book with the term in the title. Article talks about this book from the get go. Therefore I surmise that this is a promotional posting to Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Private military company or mercenary.--kelapstick (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV-sodden mess, possibly (or probably) with the intent of promoting a book. We can't really effectively merge it anywhere, since that would just be ladling the bias into another article. Suggest a simple redirect to PMC, since "mercenary" has a more general meaning. Ironholds (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism which appears to have only been used by its creator according to a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this term comes from the title of a book or not is irrelevant as this is now a term of art that defines a position new to modern warfare. This is not a discussion of a private military firm but a new role in modern warfare that is real and Wikipedia can be on the cutting edge by providing insight into a very complex subject. 96.244.227.205 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we by definition don't work on the cutting edge. We require evidence that the term is notable, and it being the title of a book is not enough. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: remove content and redirect to Private military company per suggestions of others above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 4 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 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Giangreco

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

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for I'm not used to this so I don't know the etiquette of how to respond to this, so here I go:::

Pete Giangreco has already been referenced on his brother, Mark Giangreco's wikipedia article. Simply googling Pete's name brings up his facebook, which, while protected unless you're his friend, shows his face and there are also numerous videos of him being interviewed about his job, politics, and articles about these things and his association with Blagojevich and other notable Illinois politicians (as well as those from out of state). Also, the website of his firm, the Strategy Group, also has a photo of him and a very small bio.---InterTubes —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterTubes (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of Mr. Giangreco is not being discussed here; his notability is. The fact of being the brother and the friend of someone relevant doesn't assert his notability (otherwise we would all have an article). His personal achievements don't seem enough to prove the fact that he is notable enough to deserve an article. You might want to double-check the notability guidelines at WP:N. Nothing personal, of course! McMarcoP (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia InterTubes, but sorry, delete as we need reliable sources to verify his notability and Wiki(pedia) articles, blogs, Facebook and similar sources don't cut the mustard. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:31, 9 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 to Lainz Angels of Death. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waltraud Wagner

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

Replace with redirect to Lainz Angels of Death same as the other members. This article contains no information specific to her, lacks sources, and is an orphan. — JediRogue (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - To Lainz Angels of Death. However, if more information does become available, I could see individual articles on the participants, as we do on other serial killers. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:54, 30 August 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) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge unless significantly more information becomes available on this one person. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lainz Angels of Death. The article being discussed here is little more than a retelling of the information there included, with no specific information about the person it is dedicated to. McMarcoP (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close of AfD and Redirect to Lainz Angels of Death. No rationale given for deletion by nominator, redirects can be done by simple editing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:54, 3 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. Skomorokh 03:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of riots

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

This article has been noted as being statistically skewed, incomplete, and even inaccurate.

While the idea is perfectly acceptable (a listing of a type of event) the sheer magnitude of incompleteness makes the article functionally less useful than no article at all and depending on the Wiki user to find the information they want w a more complex search than just going to one article that implies an accuracy it does not have. Nomination fixed for Aaaronsmith (talk · contribs); no position on the merits myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Article is unmanageable and mostly uncited – who knows if many of these really happened, and if they were of any historical importance. Bullet format conveys little useful information for the (many) 'riots' without an article. --CliffC (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossibly huge list if it were to be inclusive. Not user friendly, mixes riots by place. Also, categories handle this better, see Category:Riots by century. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

categories do not handle red links at all and this list has many. See WP:CLS for more reasons why categories do not supersede lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, a lot of work has gone into this. A lot of the riots have Wikipedia links, there are also some that do not but that have references. Perhaps some more citations would be helpful but I really think that deleting this would be helping no one. This is not listcruft, this is also, I think, fairly manageable. Tris2000 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this would be a more appropriate to-do list for a WikiProject than an article in mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If our sole criterion for deletion were "skewed, incomplete and even inaccurate", we'd have a lot less articles. Riots exist and have a clear definition. I can point to them. Thus, a list for them is not unreasonable. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. If it's unsourced, look for sources. If it's inaccurate, breathe fact into it. If it's too long, subdivide it by century, ___location or type. But don't delete it because it's "unmanageable" (which can be said for much of this project) or "impossibly huge" (which indicates the need for subdivision, not deletion). --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a clear definition of what constitutes a riot and list without constraints is not a list that wikipedia should have. Googlemeister (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfect is the enemy of good. This is a good start on a list covering notable incidents for which we do or should have articles. The list will assist creation of the articles where they do not exist and navigation to them when they are done. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a vote, I'm the guy who requested the AfD. I'm not expecting perfect. I expect "adequate" to actually being useful. If we could also not push someones political POV, that would also be nice. By my own estimate (based on published crime statistics, an article in Time, and just plain noticing what is reported in the US press that never makes it here) this article is coming up short as much as 100 riots PER DAY in China only. Leaving out current events, historically it is short a few million or so. The point is that this article makes about as much sense as as a listing of barroom brawls. There's a lot, not all are reported, not all are accumulated, not all have names, the ones in the classy joints are over reported, the ones in a town (country) trying to pick up tourist trade are suppressed, etc. I will continue to be against this type of listing until someone can show how a completely incorrect and politically biased list, that LOOKS like it might be accurate, is better than no list.

By the way Colonel Warden, if you want a list of "notable incidents for which we do or should have articles" how about we put it somewhere so it doesn't pretend to be informative to the general user? Please.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our approach should be like that for all other lists - that we focus upon the entries which are notable, i.e. the riots which have been reported and written about. Scholars have already compiled lists of historical riots - see sources - and our job is to summarise their writings. If we leave out mundane and commonplace disturbances this is fine and in accord with our policy that Wikipedia is not the news. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Unfortunately, I see your point. Wiki is full of "lists" where someone w an agenda is trying to show the evils of one group or another. Usually by creating a list that reports both sides, but is heavily skewed. I consider that such poorly done (whether or not deliberate) are counter productive. One possible solution would be to do a really good job of 1) Title 2) Disclaimer as the first sentence at the top. If we have a list of "riots" somewhere (and I prefer the dead center/top/all caps/bold) we need our defintion of what we are listing, inclusion criteria, and the articles incompleteness/weakness. As it is, most Wiki list just let that pass by default and the reader has no idea what they are getting (on the other hand, this is very common on the web).Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then tell me, how many people constitutes a riot? How much damage do they have to do? How long does it have to last? Otherwise, how are you going to differentiate between a riot and say a gang war? Googlemeister (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use reliable sources as we do for everything else. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precendent We previously had a discussion on a similar unbounded list. See archived discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_megafauna Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF, you should choose more similar cases such as

Historical sources suffice for these and riots are no different in character. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above dml (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being "skewed and incomplete" can not be a reason for deletion. That was a lot of good work. Such list is obviously better than nothing.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this. It is a perfect valid Wikipedia List page. It helps show all the notable riots in history, with links to their Wikipedia articles for those who want to read more about it. Dream Focus 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a list of notable riots, nothing wrong with that. If it is missing notable riots, add them. If it gets too big, split it. If you're worried about too many red link, write the articles to fill them in. Fences&Windows 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a vote, I'm the guy who requested the AfD. Having started this AfD, I'm trying to remain fairly neutral. I will point out that the arguments to keep because "a lot of work has gone into it" is meaningless. A lot of work has gone into a lot of mistakes. "It's a valid listing of events" is legite, but applies to many other article in Wiki w exactly the same problems - impossible size, extreme potential for abuse for any editor w an agenda, non existent functional definitions. It especially has a weakness shared by other articles - which of the 10 or so I am aware, no one has successfully fixed - of a complete failure of definition. (The most successful fix I know of is changing "list of massacres" to "list of events named massacres". That solved a lot of problems for the editors, but the article is now a joke). It is assumed everyone knows "what is a riot". This isn't even legitimate in as limited a venue as the US where different political precincts (down to the level of city) have different defintions and riot is not even a crime by the laws of the federal government.

Allow me to explain by giving an example (artificial and exaggerated for demo purposes only). If I started a Wiki list of "atrocities" and structured it the same as this article (and many other questionable articles in Wiki), and listed only "events" under the British Raj, we would have at least two problems. 1) What is an "atrocity"? We could discuss this for weeks so I won't go further here than to note: It is perfectly acceptable for the article to contain a definition "for the purposes of this article". 2) The fact that the article is horrifically biased against the British is acceptable to some people, because "if you think it is incomplete, research, correct, expand". This immediately puts the reader (IF they catch the mistake) in the position of researching, correcting, expanding - essentially writing an article in which they have no interest (or maybe even expertise) other than they have noticed it is a "really bad article".Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix that list would be for another editor to add events from other places & times -- for example, atrocities committed against Native Americans. Any list will unfortunately be incomplete, because individual editors have incomplete knowledge about most categories like this one -- which is why aggregating our knowledge ends up creating a stronger product. And while this list is incomplete (Late Ancient & Early Medieval Papal elections usually involved at least one riot, for example, & none seem to be included in this list), there is nothing that one or more reasonably dedicated editors couldn't fix here. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pick'n'Mix: An Assortment to Suit All Tastes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pick'n'Mix: An Assortment to Suit All Tastes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pick'n'Mix: An Assortment to Suit All Tastes

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

This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan (talk) 13:10, 9 August 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 00:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 21 August 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) 01:36, 27 August 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) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails RS --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 3 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. After three relists and many sources being revealed, there is no consensus here, even among later contributors, as to whether or not the sources provided confer notability on the topic. Closing without prejudice against renomination or merging. Skomorokh 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Still Living

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Still Living

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is significant coverage if you look - check Allmusic or Discogs for a start - will work on populating the article with suitable references etc. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 3 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 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Album did not chart nor did it receive significant coverage from secondary reliable sources; no indication of notability. — Σxplicit 04:12, 21 August 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) 01:36, 27 August 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) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - have provided detailed references & external links - expanded article & wikified. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in external reliable sources. LK (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Not so sure. I think the sources cited by the author could rise to the level of "significant coverage." I think more discussion on this is needed. Each of the sites cited has its own individual Wikipedia article. Additionally, each of the sites receives an enormous amount of monthly traffic in its venue.

However, I think that a Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is in order. I suggest that the author check WP:MUSICBIO and try to meet one or two of those other criterion. Artemis84 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added additional references, each of which are 'notable' sources, which I believe is sufficient to justify the retention of the article. It should also be noted that this is an offical release by the band, whilst not sanctioned by the band, it was released by a major label, Virgin Records, and it is not a bootleg - therefore addressing WP:MUSICBIO (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). Dan arndt (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown notability. All that you have shown is verifablity. Just because the band is notable, doesn't mean that their albums are automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:
A search engine
An image description
An Amazon page
A record listing
An Allmusic page which is almost like IMDB except with music
A discography
A one sentence mention
Another one sentence mention
Ticket information
An overview of concert dates
- How the heck is that significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage or other indication that this is notable. — Jake Wartenberg 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced info - and there is some - to the band's page. Not sufficiently notable for a separate page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; clearly notable. The Allmusic review alone suffices to established "significant coverage". Hesperian 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album's unusual release history is soundly and sufficiently sourced. Given the structure of the band's own article, the more significant content can't be merged without unbalancing that article. Despite the nominator's claim, the album is clearly not a mere bootleg, since it was rereleased on a legit label. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Most of the coverage is incidental to the bootleg. I don't know WP:MUSIC very well so I'll refrain from some more confident statement. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Trouserpress, Salon and Allmusic citations provide genuine commentary - and have differing perspectives, views and expression, so they have not been spammed. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 4 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.

|}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Eisenman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Eisenman

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

There is no claim to notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This New York Times article is about Eisenman, but has insufficient depth to show notability. This same article is the only hit on Newsbank also. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with Kevin. I could not find any more than he did. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:22, 20 August 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) 01:37, 27 August 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) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and, as the previous two editors have suggested, there is very little coverage of him.. Location (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the NYT blurb is an in-house nod to him as a worker. Abductive (reasoning) 05:49, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Olins

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Olins

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

There doesn't appear to be a WP:RS to show notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss. Many magazines are mentioned, few are linked. If links for all (or most) of them could be presented, it would be a keeper. At the moment, I am not comfortable with either opinion. McMarcoP (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. As no source has been provided, I made up my mind. Unsourced and therefore not notable. McMarcoP (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 21 August 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) 01:33, 27 August 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) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no real evidence to suggest notability. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and, as the previous editors have suggested, there is very little coverage of him.. Location (talk) 04:41, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Story

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Story

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

Notability not established for this Italian alternative rock band. The claimed nomination for "Best New Artist" does not establish notability as they didn't actually win it, we don't know how many bands get nominated and we cannot verify it. No independent sources are quoted to support any statements and the wikilinks included invariably link to irrelevant articles or redirect to the same page. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, the article has been marked for re-write due to advertising for over two years with no sign of progress. Wikipedia cannot be a memorial to bands that failed to make it. Ash (talk) 15:42, 7 August 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 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage at Amazon, no at Allmusic, no English coverage in Google News. The glove doesn't fit- delete. tedder (talk) 12:41, 1 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) 01:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 3 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. The burden of proof is on editors favouring the retention of the article to show that it is notable or should for some other reason be kept. That has not been achieved here unfortunately. Skomorokh 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scramble (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine. No indication as to what the circulation is, but it is apparently the house organ of an aviation society that is not notable enough for its own article here. No references aside from the magazine's own website. Google turns up very little relevant about it, other than this article and the web site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of mentions and discussions in blogs and forums related to aircraft spotting but the only reliable source I could find was a brief mention [41]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just check which pages on WP link back (used Scramble as a resource) 165.72.200.11 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not a measure of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 2 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) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Info appears to be valid, and nothing is to be gained by deleting an accurate article, at some point in time someone may need it~~ I think if the author can find enough references to provec the article is accurate and notable then it should be kept,unless that happens i think it should be deleted .-- VVLosVegas 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Validity is not synonymous with notability, which is the issue here. I'm a valid person, and at some point in time someone somewhere might need me, but I'm not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regardless of whether it's useful and how many articles link to it, this fails notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the more important aviation societies, a book publisher and a respected military aviation website that has been cited in Wikipedia articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite one or two of those articles so that we can verify this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.scramble.nl tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 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) 06:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Landau

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

None of the sources in article are independent of the subject & my searches didn't turn up much either. I found a routine "author book signing" events and that's about it. She has worked with the notable Douglas Engelbart, for the past few years, but that alone is insufficient for notability IMO. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are credited with third party references including McGraw Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.146.218 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shortage of independent sources. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 21 August 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 00:50, 27 August 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) 01:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage; even one of the provided sources doesn't mention her. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 3 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) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Maratha clans

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

Another list with no criteria for inclusion, and no reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of a grouping of "minor clans"—thus it is original research. A few of these were even included in the former list of 96k Maratha 'major' clans at Maratha clan system—so at this point there is no rhyme, reason, or reliable sources that are definitively grouping them. Individual clans, when notable enough for their own article, should simply go into the category Category:Maratha clans. That will suffice for a "list". Priyanath ^talk 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Priyanath ^talk 00:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't exist in the article and I haven't been able to find any either. And what makes a clan minor vs major? Also Brittanica says that the actual identity of the clans that constitute the Maratha mega clan is varied and disputed. In the absence of reliable sources, addition to the category shouldn't happen either. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:38, 2 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) 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a possible POV about some clans being "minor". No references--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MYC4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject of a full-length article in the Times; that's enough to warrant a stub. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MYC4

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MYC4

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Riddled with self links and press releases with trivial coverage or mentions. Was speedied twice previously once under WP:CSD#G11 Spam advertising, and once as WP:CSD#A7 as spam-article MyC4 (now a redirect). Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources: There is plenty of sources out there qulifying reliable, independent secondary sources — (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Perhaps, the article is riddled with self links and press releases with trivial coverage or mentions — Be Bold! Expand the article, this is a stub. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What do you mean by self-promotion and product placement? Have you checked my edit counts? I wrote most of this article and I do not work for MYC4. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless substantial improvements are made to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Armando82 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON. The debate is not a vote. Not valid grounds for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 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) 01:14, 3 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) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Joon

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

Non-notable fictional character. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character. Unclear if he is significant to the fiction in a way that is not covered by plot summary. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, delete, or redirect to Nancy Drew#Computer games. Marasmusine (talk) 14:55, 7 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 to Elinor Caplan. JForget 00:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Caplan

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

Non-notable candidate in 1977 Ontario provincial election. Only claim to fame is that he is father and husband to other elected officials. This is not enough to meet Wikipedia WP:BIO criteria. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The better answer is to merge his bio into one for the Liberal candidates for that election, but I don't think there is such an article at this time. PK T(alk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for such an article but didn't find one. Suttungr (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Suttungr. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:11, 3 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) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected officials are not inherently notable (not even if members of their families are). Notability would be asserted by wide-spread mentions of the person in independent and major sources in relation to something other than the elections in question, or if such elections were particularly notable in themselves for some event linked to Mr. Caplan. McMarcoP (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario general election, 1977. --kelapstick (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elinor Caplan as it appears all the information in this article on him is already in that article on his wife. If someone is looking for info on this former candidate for office and husband and father of notable politicans, then a pointer to where that info is helpful and if someday more facts can be added, that's good too. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elinor Caplan, everything in this one line stub is already mentioned is mentioned in his wife's article so a redirect makes most sense.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:06, 4 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) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Dada

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

Fictional character of no notability whatsoever. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty darn trivial. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable character. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it to Nancy Drew - a plausable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 16:44, 4 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) 06:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greagolian Chronicles

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

Appears to a completely non-notable book series - neither "Greagolian Chronicles" or "Dawning Catacombs" returns anything on Google ThaddeusB (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable book lacking Ghits and GNEWS. Fails WP:BK ttonyb1 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 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) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 5 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 Glastonbury Tor. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Tor in popular culture

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

Trivial listcruft that shows no signs of notability. If there is any important ones, they belong in a small section in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, any referenced material can be moved to Glastonbury Tor, and this article can be deleted as an unlikely search term. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the information should be added to the bottom of the main Glastonbury Tor article. One big one that is left out is that almost every documentary and recording from the amazing Glastonbury Festival tends to have more than a few helicopter shots of the Tor. :-)Tris2000 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - the creator of this article dislikes pop culture material, and has hit upon the strategy of splitting that material out of articles, in the hope that the standalone pop culture articles would be deleted as non-notable. Let's not reward that kind of bullshit. Hesperian 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back ridiculous waste of time with bad-faith split. I love pop culture stuff and would have rather the unreferenced material just removed and we could add back once sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Unnecessary split, articles like this should not be created until there a good twenty or so significant entries. This will likely never achieve this, and even back in the main article it could be chopped down. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial listcruft has no place in a Wikipedia article. Why? It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject, which is the sole purpose of an article. Glastonbury Tor does figure in popular culture, however.--Wetman (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely search term. The subject deserves a mention in the main article, but what is here is unsourced and appears to be original research, so it isn't very encyclopedic. Them From Space 22:37, 9 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) 10:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S3RL

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

As far as I can tell, it fails WP:MUSICBIO. The only sources given are the artist's Myspace and a YouTube video. The only claims to notability are a YouTube video with "literal [sic] millions of hits" and the claim, from the artist's Myspace, that S3RL is the "first ever DJ from Queensland to be signed on a major Hardcore record deal". I don't believe either establish notability, and the second is not verifiable. On the talk page, the primary author of the article also claims S3RL is an "internationally popular artist" but there is no evidence of this. --darolew (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit there are a lack of sources on this particular person but none the less I challenge you to find any document proving the Artists claim to be false when he claims to be the first DJ to be signed to a major label from Queensland. as for your claim that he is internationally popular he's from Australia I MYSELF AM AN AMERICAN. look at around 50% of the friends on his myspace or 95% of the posters on his Youtube videos, he has major fan bases amongst the "UK Hardcore" genre lovers. -- Fr0z3n_Sh4de

Comment: Let me make a few remarks. First, please sign your posts using ~~~~ (or see here). But to move on: The claim in the article that S3RL is the "first ever DJ from Queensland to be signed on a major Hardcore record deal" must be verifiable, which it does not seem to be; it is irrelevant that I cannot prove the claim to be false. Even if the claim is true, I do not believe it establishes notability, especially since the "major" deal appears to be with a non-major label. (The WP:MUSICBIO criteria, for the record, specify "two or more albums on a major label", which this claim of notability clearly falls short of.) Continuing, that you, a single American, has heard of this Australian band is hardly proof of "international popularity". Lastly, neither Myspace nor YouTube comments establish notability. --darolew (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want solid proof of his international audience, take a gander at this show he played in Seattle, Washington, [42] or perhaps this myspace solely committed to a show he DJed in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania [43], additionally I know for a fact that he played a show at the Candyball Venue in New York City as my own brother attended it, it's just a matter of finding a document confirming ... If that doesn't qualify him as being "internationally popular", I don't know what does... Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first link is evidence he played a show in Seattle. The second is another Myspace, about a show he played it Pittsburgh. Neither of these establish "international popularity" or notability. The story from your brother is the same, except unverifiable. Merely having played several shows in the United States does not make the subject notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Even if it did, WP:MUS states that "the article itself must document notability", it is not enough to put forth claims on the AfD page. For more on notability for music artists and bands, please review WP:MUSICBIO. --darolew (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh there we are his upcoming shows list in his myspace "Sep 12 2009 8:00P Kandy Land in Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, Utah Sep 25 2009 8:00P Fevah @ Planet Brisbane, Queensland Sep 26 2009 8:00P Sector 7even @ Zillmere Brisbane, Queensland Oct 9 2009 8:00P Jenocide09 @ Rockafellas Brisbane, Queensland Oct 17 2009 8:00P Escape To Neverland in Seattle Seattle, Washington Oct 30 2009 8:00P Candyball in New York New York, New York Nov 13 2009 8:00P Dawn of the Rave in New York New York, New York Nov 14 2009 8:00P LA - TBA LA, California Nov 21 2009 8:00P Utopia in Sydney Sydney, New South Wales Nov 27 2009 8:00P UK tour - TBA UK, London and South East" [44]how many of those are outside his country? I count more than half ... Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See above. For all those shows, I can find no evidence of S3RL having received "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source". --darolew (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally as for you not thinking his label is "major" look at this page [45] Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above is a link to the "about" page for the label Nu Energy Collective. The S3RL article nowhere mentions this label; even if the label is notable (no evidence of that) I don't see how it's relevant. --darolew (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here are 2 CDs released by S3RL on that Label [46]Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By doing a search on the above site, it seems S3RL has released one EP from Relentless Vinyl and has one release from Executive Records. If these are "major" labels or "more important" indie labels, this would meet criteria five of WP:MUSICBIO. I don't believe this to be the case—as far as I can tell, neither of them has so much as a website; and, at any rate, "the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true", which it does not. --darolew (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, It was abbreviated as NEC under labels ... I'll amend that Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allow me to reiterate that establishing notability on the AfD page (this page) counts for nothing. If you believe the subject is notable, edit the article to establish this, then return here, and vote Keep while pointing out how you believe the article establishes the notability of its subject. The purpose of AfD pages is to come to consensus about whether an article is notable; AfD pages (such as this one) are not meant as places to establish notability. --darolew (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you were to actually read the anymore of the site you would find the Nu Energy is is in fact such a large label it engulfs around 20 other labels [47] and there's the website you were looking for at any rate... Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) The number of "sub-labels" does not make it a "major" or "important" label. 2) I was never looking for the Nu Energy label. I pointed out that neither Relentless Vinyl nor Executive Records had websites, and were thus probably not major or important. --darolew (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

additionally I found this quote on that same sight "We All Scream Since first attracting the NEC’s attentions S3RL has since gone on to become one of the biggest Australian producers and is known worldwide. He has an immeasurable following in the USA and is rocking UK floors too with his distinctive flavour" [48] Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not an independent source. Furthermore, please consider reviewing the AfD logs to understand how these discussions are meant to be conducted. (Edit: Or see here.) --darolew (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with the items I just posted under the new discography section of the article I believe it qualifies not only under clause 5 but also under clause 3. Fr0z3n Sh4de (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good faith search for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources turned up nothing of interest. No evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:05, 3 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 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explorers' Club of Bangladesh

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

No assertion of notability; no verifiable references found; organization's referenced web site moribund since 2004 tlesher (talk) 19:03, 27 August 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 00:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 3 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 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Back

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

this article has been a stub for over 1 year and will always remain so, it is a waste of internet/wikipedia space and there is literally no information contained on the page. it could easily be contained in a small section on Dear Jayne home page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not paper, and no space is saved by deleting this page. No virtual space is freed, since the history is still kept on the servers, and this proceeding actually increases the amount of virtual space taken. But that's neither here nor there. The nominator advises that this be included in a small section on the Dear Jayne page - except he has nominated that page for deletion as well, and removed all mention of this single from the page. I think the nominator should make up his mind as to what he is trying to accomplish here. Chubbles (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if Dear Jayne page is deleted so will the singles etc. At the end of the day a song charting does not make an artist or single notable by itself. The artist has to be notable too. And in this case there is not enough sourced information on the home page (Dear Jayne) and the single page is not notable. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Then a Merge is appropriate. Chubbles (talk) 18:39, 27 August 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 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 3 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 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Altius

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

Building is asserted to be notable via its historic ___location, but the building does not appear to be individually listed on the NRHP. The current occupant of the building appears to be a non-notable company --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The building, at 3518 Greenwood, is a contributing property to the Greenwood Historic District. (See the National Register nomination, page 7.) Actually, though, the historic district and its buildings are more worthy of an article than Studio Altius is, so I think we should rewrite the article about the historic district and include whatever is worthy from Studio Altius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 2 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 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per Elkman: this could easily be the core of an article on a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sang Lee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Sang Lee

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

Non-notable individual. Acting roles mostly uncredited. Unable to find independent support for championships. Ghits lacking substance and no GNEWS coverage other than a couple of one line mentions. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:39, 3 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) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grube & Hovsepian

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

I've done an extensive online search, and this group does not meet any of the criteria for noteability in WP:MUSIC. Singularity42 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally created by User:Recordjes2 as Grube and Hovsepian, where it was nominated for speedy deletion on February 4th, 2009 under Criteria A7. Recordjes2 recreated the article under the current title, where it was deleted under PROD on June 24, 2009 for failing WP:MUSIC. Recordjes2 recreated the article a third time, and I initally put it under PROD, but I was told that since it has been deleted under PROD once before, it has to come here. The other two related articles - Tim Grube and Tek-Ne - both created by Recordjes2 have been listed under PROD (Tek-Ne originally being deleted as a speedy deletion).Singularity42 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 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 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment obviously not much interest here :). Before an admin re-lists this again, please note that the two related articles have now been deleted after their PRODs expired. This article was originally deleted from an expired PROD, but the author re-created it. The author has so far chosen not to comment on this review, although he was notified. This really should have been PROD'd had it not been deleted that way before. Singularity42 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found, No sources for claims of releases on labels. Since all their releases appear to be mp3s they haven't had multiple albums on an important label. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 8 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 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Fordyce

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

Delete: Links do not produce the verification of Notability. Even if the subject of this article has worked with a celebrity, that still doesn't prove notability. I have found nothing at BillBoard Mag. that gives him credit for any of those major releases. However, I did find this at Discogs - One Last Chance which appears to be the only "proof" of working on that record. Unfortunately, it is an underground dance promo vinyl record, one that is not even listed on Epic's release catalog. The official release is here and needless to say that Fordyce appears on nothing at BM and it does not help establish the claim at the article page that "Since 2003, FORD has earned 19 Multi-Platinum, Platinum, and Gold RIAA sales awards for mixing and producing artists including Michael Jackson" . Even if all the other big name records were produced in similar circumstances, it does not give him any proof of notability WP:N. At this point, the only thing that could give legitimacy and notability as a producer would be the Recording Academy's list of Grammy nominations, or a review or an interview on a reputable magazine like "Mix", Keyboard Online, etc, etc. Jrod2 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 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 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaiphei

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiphei

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

Was AfD-tagged as "original /fantasy/synthesis", but I suspect that the Vaiphei may exist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rudimentary Google Books search shows they exist. This article is part of the interesting flow of OR coming out of South Asia into poorly maintained Wikipedia articles-- don't stub it just yet. Shii (tock)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:12, 29 August 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, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An ethnic group that has coverage in gbooks and possibly a lot more offline resources. The article as it stands doesn't help much, I'm going to stub and reference it in the hope that sourced expansion will happen. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he ethnic group exists, and an article about them can be interesting. Of course, as everyone pointed out, it would need to be rewritten and widely expanded. McMarcoP (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns about it's existence have been addressed, and there are references that support keeping this a stub that will hopefully grow over time Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:11, 3 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) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Kroon

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

This article is an autobiography of a non-notable person. His only real claim to notability are his work in feature films, but those are unverified in the article and I can't confirm his actual contributions (I see musician and voiceover recordist possibly). The references given are either to the Norwegian Wikipedia, or to web pages that don't even mention his name (yes I translated them). I only found one Gnews hit for his name, and it barely mentions him in passing. -- Atama頭 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 07:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. I checked each link and tried some searches, but found nothing to satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:COMPOSER. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 27 August 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 00:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be notability in the future but the body of work does not exist at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 03:41, 7 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 to Candlemass per suggestion by the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Björkman

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, except that the criminal conviction made the news (I verified the sources). I'm not sure that brings up his notability, however, so I'm bringing to AFD for wider opinions. Also, I'm going to bundle in the bios of some of the other members with questionable notability. Lara 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nom includes:

Lars Johansson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johan Längqvist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:37, 27 August 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) 00:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. This debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Candlemass as per the guideline, none of them have enough notability for standalone articles, but they are conceivable as a search time Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:16, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchingthewest

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

Not enough notability on the site; the article only uses references from its own site; creator of the article removed the "prod" tag Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. According to its Facebook and Twitter pages, the review site was founded on August 5, i.e., it's been around for less than 1 month. Note that this article was also speedily deleted on August 10; i.e., 5 days after the site went online. Baring exceptional circumstances, I don't how see the site suddenly acheived notability/historical significance since August 10, and thus satisfying WP:WEB. --Madchester (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim of notability.Prezbo (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete just created, no 3rd party sources. WP:A7.--Otterathome (talk) 13:04, 6 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 to Leon S. Talaska. Redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talaska

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

Non-notable surname; only source is self-published, no indication of any historical importance, as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:49, 27 August 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 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't it just be redirected to the article on the one person listed as having this surname?--Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the one person having this surname. I concur with Kitnisky. [flaming lawyer] 21:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was under the impression that cases like these should be taken to AFD since by turning a page into a redirect you basically are deleting it. Was I right or was this just needless process? — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're correct. It belongs at AfD, not RfD. Most people would mark a vote such as mine a "Delete and redirect." [flaming lawyer] 23:36, 3 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) 06:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Hymn

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

NN song — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 20 August 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 00:50, 27 August 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, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. This debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick google search (yes, I know...) shows nothing of notability, and the only assertion is that the author merely says that it's notable. OK, why is it notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A boarding school alma mater deserves no more than a line or two in the school article. The word "notable" does not notable make. NTK (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a mention in the school's article is quite sufficient for the existence of the song, which does not achieve notability on its own. Benea (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The glaring lack of reliable sources is an obvious problem. Fences&Windows 00:13, 4 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 to Rock Star: INXS. After 14 days there's not enough participation to determine consensus but the article is an unsourced BLP so I'm redirecting per WP:BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordis Unga

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. AS IS, the article does not meet WP:V; however, many independent, reliable sources do exist in GoogleNews and elsewhere (e.g.[49]). In determining notability, consideration given to #1, #5 #9, and #12 in WP:MUSICBIO as she finished fifth in the Rock Star: INXS competition and received much press while on the show. Location (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rock Star: INXS. no notability shown outside show. coverage is about Unga from the show (eg link provided above is Unga's bio from the show). I see no evidence for #5 (two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels). If you meant #9, Rock Star: INXS is just another TV talent show (see precendence for Idol, etc contestants). I see no evidence for #12, she is not the subject of Rock Star: INXS, just another contestant. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean #9 and not #5, so thanks for somehow catching that! I gave consideration to #9 because there is little in the guidelines to say this is "just" a talent show and not a music competition. She performed 12 times on a major television network, so I think this is a bit different that singing a song at a local beauty contest. While I do agree that she has no notability outside the show, that does not necessitate that she cannot have her own article. I was not aware of any Afd precedents regarding Idol contestants, but I did use the current quality of the article and the presence of similar articles - those who have performed over multiple weeks and placed high - in Idol and Rock Star as a guideline in forming a weak keep recommendation.Location (talk) 16:03, 27 August 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, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 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. per WP:SNOW JForget 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig G. Langhauser

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

Biograhpy of an Army Officer. No specific notability other than he is an Officer. PROD deleted by article creator without comment. noq (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This thing reads like a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Colonel Langhauser appears to have had a fairly standard career for an officer of his rank and, more importantly, there are no references to meet WP:BIO so notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no evidence of encyclopedic notability. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Buckshot06(prof) 08:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. No disrespect intended, but I do not believe this man meets the guidelines of inclusion, nor is the article referenced what-so-ever. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not referenced; there is no proof of the info on this page. Mart572(talk) 03:20, 4 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. What concerns us is not what Mr. Bryson has written, but what has been written of Mr. Bryson. Skomorokh 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Bryson

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

Doesn't meet requirements of WP:AUTHOR. The person exists as described, but is not notable. The article reads like a promotional cv. A Google search did not reveal any reliable sources, only blogs. SilkTork *^YES! 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTE and WP:RS. No reliable sources, not noteable. Also does not meet WP:AUTHOR. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 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, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a press release isn't a reliable source. --AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has problems, indeed, but they guy has written no fewer than four books, many columns in major magazines, and is the editor of another. He's probably one of the top 5 beer writers currently alive. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:31, 3 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. It is of note that the mere existance of something does not make it suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbroken (Katharine McPhee album)

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

This is a future album supported by no reliable sources, therefore failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. The Billboard reference talks about her being signed to a new label and working on an album, but no mention of a name or a release date. The tommy2.net is a non-reliable source that has a different album name and different release date. The Amazon link with a release date is not enough to have an article about a future album. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information available about this album, so I think we should improve the article rather than delete it. --Maxime9232 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verve, McPhee's label, is promoting it as is McPhee herself on her Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pages. Entertainment shows E! News and Extra have covered it as well. I think there's more than enough information at this point to support creation of this article, assuming of course 6 weeks prior to release is ok with Wikipedia. Ducold (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was editing this page and was going to put more sources and information up, but I took a break and was going to come back and do some more work on it. I don't think it should be deleted. -GMANGRIFFG (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a page from Verve's website showing the album title, cover, and release date be considered a reliable source?: http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/music/detail.aspx?pid=12071&aid=7353 144.51.89.67 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . No coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously kidding me? Why is this article even being seriously considered for deletion? Katharine McPhee and her label Verve Forecast, may not have promoted Unbroken to the big news sources or MTV, but anyone who bothers to do some digging would know that that this album will be released on October 6th. If McPhee herself and the label have stated that this album is finished and will come out in October, that should be good enough to warrant keeping this page, as it will only come back if it's deleted. If you're looking for a reliable third party source, maybe this would work? [50] Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the album is less than 6 weeks from release and is starting to get publicity and is being promoted by the artist and label, it seems the initial reason for deletion has been overtaken by events. Perhaps the mods can just leave it be at this point. Ducold (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this debate overtaken by events? The album will be released in less than 5 weeks and the artist and label have talked about it and promoted it. More thorough discussion seems like overkill at this point. Ducold (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but it's kind of ridiculous that this is still being discussed. It's a sure fact that the album will be released in a few weeks, and promotion is slowly ramping up... someone please explain what further proof we need to prove this album exists. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wickedlyperfect, the debate is still ongoing because a) very few editors have participated thus far and b) those editors who have participated are not in agreement, so there is no consensus so far. Regards, Skomorokh 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The album's existence isn't the issue. My big toe exists, but that doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. A topic generally needs to be notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, and future albums generally are not considered notable until there is significant coverage in reliable sources. To some extent, I think this gets silly when articles are nominated for deletion a couple of days before the scheduled album release date, but there needs to be a line somewhere (hopefully enforced with some WP:COMMONSENSE) and in this case the release date is several weeks away still, making the nomination reasonable (in my view). But the key is to add reliable sources (i.e., not twitter, myspace, facebook, etc.) that demonstrate the album is already notable today, even though it hasn't been released yet. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep Ducold (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the references in the article right now are twitter and the like, which do not establish notability. There is a comment by an editor above that E!News and Extra have covered it, which I am willing to AGF on, and which would (I believe) establish sufficient notability if that coverage was "significant". But it would be preferablt to have references to the shows in the article itself. Rlendog (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog, I think I'm understanding the issue better. Thank you for further enlightening. I knew the Wiki editors were tough on early articles for album (which is why I cautioned some fans who wanted to create the article months ago), but adherence to the standards is tougher than I realized. But I do have to ask, why is an artist's twitter and myspace posts and label webpages about an album release date not considered reliable enough? Even if media reports on it, the album could still be canceled, and in the end, the album information comes from the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducold (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the notability guidelines, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since anyone can twitter anything, or post what they want to MySpace pages, without independent validation, those generally do not qualify as reliable sources. I suppose that if someone posts about their own upcoming album on their own MySpace (or similar) page, that might be considered reliable, but then it is definitely not "independent of the subject", and so cannot be used to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources Facha93 (talk) 23:21, 9 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.

[1] ttp://www.thestar.com/comment/article/687006

[2] ttp://weatheroffice.gc.ca/warnings/SWS_bulletins_e.html?prov=on

[3] ttp://www.mediaincanada.com/articles/mic/20090825/stormratings.html

[1]

[2]

[3]