Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 3

< 2 December	4 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neco Scooters

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

Unremarkable clone scooter manufacturer from China. There a probably a hundred such companies producing cheap copies of European bikes/scooters. Google for Neco and you'll find lots of mentions, but nothing of any substance - mainly forums or companies selling the bikes. I challenge you to find a single mention in a reputable motorcycle or scooter publication. Biker Biker (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article the Neco isn't a clone of a 1960's Vespa, it's a mechanically modern scooter that closely copies it's styling. This makes it unique and at least as notable as any other scooter article in Wikipedia. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention in any books, magazine or news articles at ProQuest or General One File, nor Google. A single blog post is insufficient. --Dbratland (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, the UK distributor's website is a reliable source of information. This bike is known as the Neco Abruzzi in the UK, a Google search for this returns over 6,000 results (presumably you are using the US Google). Secondly, this bike is already on sale in the French market. If you search www.google.fr you get over 3,000 results including reviews, small ads and www.scooter-station.com. As far as I can see this is an on-line scooter guide and not a blog. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is a poor indicator of notability. What's needed are independent and reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was just trying to answer Dbratland's query about a lack of web presence. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK distributor's website hardly indicates a professional company and is most definitely not a reliable source. Look on the specifications page. Do you see the glaring mistake there? Obviously the company haven't. Notability is indicated by mentions and reviews in respected motorcycle or scooter journals, yet the UK's leading scooter magazine (Twist N Go, which I subscribe to) has never reviewed or even mentioned the Neco. Motorcycle News which regularly features Aprilia, Derbi, Piaggio, Vespa, Gilera, or Sachs scooters has never once mentioned Neco. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they just mixed the headers up, easy to do when you're creating HTML. I suspect the lack of mentions in the UK media is due to the fact that Neco are just entering it. I've found at least two French language reviews, they seem to be more established there. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just launching in the UK? So why weren't they among the manufacturers at this week's NEC motorcycle show? More evidence, perhaps, that they are a non-notable clone manufacturer who don't merit an article on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've watched Top Gear then you'll know that it's not unusual for even major manufacturers no to bother with automotive shows. Like I said before, the Neco Abruzzi isn't a clone. It's bodywork might be a close copy of a 1960's Vespa but it's mechanical components are right up to date. There is nothing else like it. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. What has Top Gear got to do with motorcycles? Show me a notable manufacturer who wasn't at the NEC. There is no way cheap Chinese clone manufacturer would appear there because they aren't even professional (or big) enough to have a proper website. Anyway, that's the last word from me. Let others judge the notability of this outfit. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were LML at the NEC? Regardless of what you think about Neco you can't deny that the Abruzzi/Italia is unique. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "unique" and WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In other words, you haven't given an argument about how Wikipedia's notability guidelines have been met. tedder (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation
Here are two articles from on-line scooter guides that meet WP:GNG:
http://www.scooter-station.com/Neco-Italia-125.html
http://www.scooter-infos.com/essai-1573-neco-italia-125.html
Would it be acceptable to use these to rewrite the page so that it is about the Neco Abruzzi/Italia scooter? This is what it was going to be mainly about anyway. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have exactly two blog posts. Do two blog posts constitute significant coverage? The answer is based on Are weblogs reliable sources? and WP:COMPANY. I would say not -- if it were two blog posts on highly influential journals or institutions, perhaps 2 would be enough. But these two blog posts -- only one of them signed by the author's apparent real name, the other uses an Internet handle -- do not show any evidence of being written by professionals who are recognized experts, and there is no evidence that they are subject to editorial control found in normal journals and publishing houses. To me these two blog posts look like a half step above a community forum. They prove existence, not notability. --Dbratland (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't blogs - they are articles in on-line scooter guides. They're probably as reliable as anything you'd find in a printed motorcycle magazine. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just clicked on the scooter Station 'Who' page and found this, it's a professional magazine.

The staff Scooter-Station and Moto-Station:
Editor & Publisher: Emmanuel Cadiou
Associate Editor: Mehdi Bermani
Section editor test: Christophe Mao
Section Editor terrain: Arnaud Vibien
Editorial Assistant, Community: Alexandre Guichard
Webmaster: Laura Eslan
Developer: Eric Mezzani
Contributors: Philippe Lebreton (Talk Sport), Bertrand Carrière (photo), Christophe Harmand (test market), Christian Boor (test), Philip Chanin (test), Pierre Leguévaques (special old)
Heads pub: Gilles Maillet, Virginia Hoang, Paul Blondé

So it is an online scooter guide with a few people working for it. How does that estabilish its notability as a reliable source? It doesn't have a print copy. Not being Belgian I can't tell whether those people listed above are also reputable journalists recognised in the motorcycle/scooter world. The magazine's "About us" page also clearly states "Scooter-Station est aussi un outil promotionnel (publicité, petites annonces)", which translates as "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads)". In other words it will print anything it can to get page impressions and advert clicks. None of this does anything to establish the notability of Neco and I stand by my original assertion that it is nothing but a cheap Chinese clone manufacturer that doesn't deserve coverage on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full quote with the key words highlighted, "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads) recognized by the profession with a target readership."

All magazines have adverts. This was one is subject to editorial control and is as reliable as any other. I think a 1,300 word article in it more than satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiabliity. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom, specifically? It's easy to say, but is it true? This blog is not written by journalists and they do not do reporting. They rewrite press release material and post publicity photos supplied by marketeers. You know one reason real journalists do not speak of these knock-off products is that they are basically illegal? The GY6 engine design was stolen from Honda and after being copied by so many Chinese companies for so many years, it became impossible to contest it. Some faceless, nameless factory in China has slapped a fake Italian scooter copy on top of a copy of an illegally-licensed Honda powertrain, and they claim to have invented something "unique". They even have the nerve to try to deceive buyers by putting a false Italian flag on it.

It is for these reasons that reputable sources will not touch them with a ten foot pole, and why we have no trustworthy facts to base an article on. --Dbratland (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather ironic that you mention the GY6 Engine as its page had no references for over 2 years, before I added one from the Neco UK website! You and Biker Biker both edited in that time and didn't list it for deletion. As far as I can see Scooter-Station is a professionally produced scooter guide which is as reliable a source as any other. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did nominate GY6 Engine for deletion on July 11, 2009. It squeaked by due to no consensus. I still think it should be deleted and will probably try again, although I don't want to belabor the point if I'd only be wasting others' time. But now that you bring it up, I'd be happy to remove the Neco Scooters citation, along with all uncited "facts" from GY6 Engine. I'd prefer to have only information you can trust and let blogs and forums discuss rumors and self-serving propaganda. --Dbratland (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation

I don't think we are going to reach a consensus, so the future of this page should be decided on whether Scooter-Station is a reliable source.

If it is just a blog then the Neco Scooters page should be deleted.

However I maintain that it is a professionally produced scooter guide that is subject to editorial control and recognized by the industry. A 1,300 word review in it would therefore meet WP:GNG for the Neco Abruzzi, but not the Neco company.

Consequently I would suggest moving the Neco Scooters page to a new Neco Abruzzi page. I would then expand the article using Scooter-Station as a source. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Let the AfD run its course. In the meantime if you want to start a Neco Abruzzi article fill your boots, but that too may get nominated for deletion if the only source it has is one which you alone maintain is reliable. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Even if scooter-station is a reliable source, that doesn't demonstrate the depth of coverage necessary to fulfill WP:GNG. The fact that everything hings on one quali-reliable source is proof the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that article is 1,300 words long? There are also dozens of links to dealerships ranging from Bitain to Eastern Europe. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS What does quali-reliable mean please? (for future reference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Unknowns (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"quasi-reliable" means it isn't clear if that one source is reliable. Read WP:GNG carefully. "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, even if this source is reliable (which is questionable), this is far from "significant coverage in reliable sources". tedder (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article [1] in Gente Motori, an Italian motor magazine described in Amazon as "an Italian automobile magazine which offers the readers a driver-oriented approach to the automotive world mixing practical topics and entertaining features for all kinds of car lovers."[2] The Neco Italia/Abruzzi is mentioned in at least two different magazine articles in two different countries in two different languages. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an article, it a mention - at best taken from the manufacturer's own press release. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article. The Neco Abruzzi has now appeared in different comercially produced magazines in different countries in different languages. It has come to international attention and cannot be anything but notable. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE maybe this should be mentioned on the Vespa article, but neither of the references are good/substantial enough for that use. --Bambi Kebab (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Bambi Kebab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And here is yet another article[3] from Omnimoto, a professionally produced Italian language magazine[4]. A quick Google search has so far found 3 reliable sources for the Neco Abruzzi. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a fourth article[5] from the professionally produced moto-infos.com. Take a look at the copyright message in the bottom left hand corner of the home page[6]. You can't copyright somebody else's work. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run-of-the-mill company with 144 total Google returns. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state beverages

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

Um, this is twaddle. "Official State Beverage"? Say what? This is just a collection of marketing endorsements, and the major source, from which most are taken, is unreliable. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If this was List of Official Beverages of sporting leagues/events/something, I'd be thacking it with the delete stick and hard. Official state beverages, however, is another kettle of fish. Like it or not, a "State Beverage" is on the same level of notability as a state bird or state flower; they're not marketing endorsements, they're actually things passed by the legislature. Do the legislatures in question have too much time on their hands? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that this is, indeed, a notable topic. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. ^What he said...Smarkflea (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: such state endorsements would appear to have little real significance -- do most states serve milk at formal official dinners? And the choices appear to show little in terms of imagination (being mostly 'milk'). What's next, official state pizza toppings? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that Alabama also has an official state: Bible, Salt Water Fish , Mineral , Rock , Horse , Fresh Water Fish , Game Bird , Folk Dance, Nut, Fossil, Renaissance Faire, Alabama State Championship, Official Mascot & Butterfly, Insect, Reptile, Gemstone, Shell, Outdoor Drama, Barbecue Championship, Agricultural Museum , Horseshoe Tournament, Historic Theatre, Outdoor Musical Drama, Tree, Soil, Quilt, Wildflower, Amphibian, Fruit, Spirit, Mammal, & Tree Fruit[7] (sorry, no official state pizza topping). I would suggest that lists of such obscure state emblems goes well beyond the line of WP:IINFO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's well within the remit of WP:NOTPAPER, I might point out. A lot of those more obscure ones could easily be in a table in the state's article, yes. But "official xxxs" that a large number of states have (as opposed to, say State Quilts!) should be lists. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is interesting to note that in no case is the official beverage beer - shurely shome mishtake? Anyway, this information is contained in numerous almanacs and encyclopedia such as Collier's encyclopedia and so is appropriate for us too. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{failed verification}} on that Collier's link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 81. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion, this is a very silly topic and is borderline unencyclopedic, but somehow it appears to documented enough to pass WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep States have official birds, amphibians, flowers, foods, beverages, and a lot of other stuff. Dream Focus 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What a bizarre thing to have. I'm looking forward to the "state pizza-toppings" article, soon as the other states realise that Hawaii's already got one it's surely only a matter of time. pablo 11:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - (1) it easily passes [WP:GNG]] as one of those sorts of things that is clearly notable; (2) it passes WP:LIST as something that should be in this format, as opposed to just a category; (3) it is easily sourceable and verifiable with a mix of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as may be seen by recent efforts to rescue it through sourcing; and (4) just the sort of thing that our core readership -- high school and middle school students -- would look for here at WP. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject obviously shows much notability as pointed out by The Bushranger, Bearian ect Venustas 12 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep As long as all entries are cited. It's one of many state insignia, for the which the laws creating them are passed by state legislatures. It's true that many of these, especially the beverages, become official because of some food-production-related board's lobbying efforts--obviously the state milk promotion boards have a lot of money and influence--but that doesn't make them any less official. A lot of the state flowers, birds, etc., were lobbied for by the states' schoolchildren. Again, that doesn't make them any less official. It's also true we don't need lists with only one entry. See List of U.S. state neckwear. Valfontis (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In referenced to the nom, the world is 95% twaddle, so notable twaddle is 95% of wikipedia. Americans drink a lot of milk, apparently.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 General Binding Corporation. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fordigraph

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

Non-notable product which has a similar name to other products but no references to prove notability, Sadads (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to parent company. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to General Binding Corporation. While I'm confident that we'll eventually have an article on this brand, I don't have time to work on it right now. This being the second time it's been considered for deletion, see Talk:Fordigraph, I think something needs to be done. Andrewa (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General Binding Corporation would seem to be appropriate. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kaneva. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneva Game Platform

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

I don't see any claim to notability here. It also lacks significant coverage and is written like an advert. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-sourced article, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no reliable sources and appears to be primarily promotional.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kaneva per WP:PRODUCT Marasmusine (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and or Redirect to Kaneva per WP:SOAP and WP:Advertising. Wikipedia is not a advertising machine Venustas 12 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Promotional article. Will Beback talk 01:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Geissler

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

This seems to be a cross between a poorly referenced biography and a promotional article for the subject's business interests. There may be some notability in here somewhere but Digital Angel already has an article and that probably covers it. DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly promotional interests.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the article is advertising sounding or self-promotional sounding. Geissler has done all those things. He has numerous patents, and inventions. That's not self-promotional; doing some basic research reveals that Geissler founded Digital Angel and several other companies, and later sold them. This alone would make him deserving of his own article, and makes a merge into the Digital Angel article somewhat inappropriate (this was a company he sold). BoogieTime (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — BoogieTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks sockpuppet! Since this is your only edit, we can discount you from the consensus. This article was created by User:1weezie23, a sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Smkovalinsky as a paid article writing. The efforts were done just prior to the sell of Digital Angel as promotional. Since Kovalinsky insists on calling us Wikipedians morons, etc. and states that she will persist as she pleases, knowingly violating policies for money....very ugly behavior...this article needs to be canned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search please. The first result is about him, giving ample coverage, and I'm sure other results are about him as well. And if you think its overly promotional, then work on the article, adding a tag about that even. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS Cleanup in this case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle that AfD is not for cleanup. I would not have started the AfD if I didn't believe that deletion was the right outcome and that cleanup was not possible. I probably worded the nomination quite badly, by not mentioning notability and verifiability as concerns. Deletion is to be decided on the notability and suitability of the topic. The possibility of it being a commissioned piece of COI is not pertinent to deletion, although it is a good reason to gut the article down to a neutral stub if it is kept. Dream Focus's argument is valid. I just think that he is mistaken in believing that there is material here for a verifiable biography sourced from reliable independent sources. The USA Today article is about Digital Angel's products. It offers little of use in a biography. What we would need is coverage of him as a person, focussing on his career as a serial entrepreneur, not just coverage of his companies where he is covered in passing. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He probably has done all that. However, do we need such repetitive detail and such an unreadable article? It does look promotional in places, perhaps not surprising considering its origin. Could I suggest (without volunteering) that the article would well cut down to basics (which would not please Ms Kovalinsky or whoever she is) which would give an article about someone who does seem to have a certain notability. (Don't tell him I said this, but MichaelQSchmidt is rather good at that sort of thing...) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G5: lack of notability/significant third party sourcing (especially beyond the business side, which already has its own article), lack of focus (article jumps from person to business interests), promotional tone. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to 'Speedy', per Artemis84. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If BereanHunter knows that BoogieTime is a sock for certain, s/he should have blocked BoogieTime immediately and removed h/er vote. My suspicion is, however, that Bhunter is playing some sort of political game here that we're unaware of. I don't think s/he should make this kind of blanket accusation without some clear evidence. Nevertheless, my vote is to
Delete regardless. 1weezie23 is a known sock. Therefore, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place; it is fruit from a poisoned tree. Sockpuppets can, within reason, have their entire edit reverted or deleted, as a matter of course. Although I do believe the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. It seems unfair that the subject should be penalized simply because the writer was/is a sock. My recommendation is that someone (and I'm not volunteering) move the article to their userspace and clean it up. Artemis84 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Artemis is a meatpuppet of Smkovalinsky and he is all around the articles crafted by gnosisarts. He is promoting their search tool (M0rpheme) on his user page (only person on Wikipedia to do so). I recorded an accusation about you last night here...and then, out of the clear blue, without having edited since July, you appear at AfD to try to save your client and worker. You are associated with gnosisarts, yes? Owner? (yes) Anyone looking at your contribs will see the articles that were the work of S. Kovalinsky or her socks. I see you editing the article, Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans, which was commissioned at gnosis. I see you tried to save an article written by User:34pin6, another Kovalinsky sock, here. You also appear at Keithley Instruments where Kovalinsky's sock, User:Dcsm23 edited for money. You also tried to save an article written by same sock here and now have it as a draft in your userspace. The high coincidence of you appearing on their articles with no more contribs than you have is implausible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article created by a paid editor. We should not be encouraging editors who are creating articles for money by keeping these articles around. All of the references about this subject are primarily about Digital Angel and its products, not about Geissler. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block all sock puppets. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunflowergal34 Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC Sunflowergal34 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man

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

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

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

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

Non-notable Internet meme. Lacks any reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Contested PROD. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Videos on this are nearing a thousand and its getting popular on numerous sites, its been mention on Coast to Coast with Art Bell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.62.44 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) — 74.110.62.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Something Awful meme sourced from Something Awful, Something Awful and... Something Awful. Grow up, guys. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's becoming a more and more prominent phenomenon: it's more well known then half of the articles in the "Internet memes" category. The fact that the marble hornets videos are getting 60 000+ views within the first week of their release, plus the older videos having as many as half a million views is testament enough to that. SlightlyChaotic (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— SlightlyChaotic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Maybe it could be kept if it were getting lots of coverage via reliable sources (or a lot of Gnews hits). Right now, the only "sources" I can find are blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Marble Hornets creators were featured in some online magaziene articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.6.40 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's far more prominent and noteworthy than many other internet memes and proper sources are certainly available, its the article itself that just needs to be improved. --Chaos Indy (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Erpert. A check for sourcing gives only blogs and meme related sites at the moment. This topic is well documented on such sites that collect memes, but I don't believe this meets the notability requirements for an entry in an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Jebavý

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

does not pass WP notability for a tennis player either as a junior or senior player Mayumashu (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets guidelines for notability by participating in the highest level of his sport.Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS as a junior player achieving a ranking of 3 (see [8]). -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I failed to notice that it says a top three ranking makes one WP notable. Nomination withdrawn Mayumashu (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Worldwide

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

Orphaned article about a minimally notable media company. References do not demonstrate notability and some are not even relevant. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first AfD lists delete as outcome and this should have happened then. Not notable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was deleted over four years ago and was recreated this August. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam-tastic, mate! Have a look at the creator, Saf251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Guy (Help!) 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just declined a speedy on this as it is no so horrible as to warrant being deleted without discussion. I considered deleting it as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version uses sources that were not attached to the previous version. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional page on non-notaqble business created by paid editors. Will Beback talk 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So blatantly spammy and promotional. Cindamuse (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Multiple rocket launcher. Sandstein 08:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Launch Rocket Truck

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

Appears to be an ill-conceived neologism. The only references I found were forks of Wikipedia. Marcus Qwertyus 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to either Technical (fighting vehicle) or Multiple rocket launcher, ~~The rocket-launching trucks can be covered under Technical (fighting vehicle)~~ as opposed to making up a name for them. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multiple rocket launcher. There is no distinction with that term between trucks and tracked vehicles. Seems like someone was on the right path, but didn't use a more general search term. I'm not sure I buy the distinction with technicals, either. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there is any reason to redirect if the term is original research or just made up. Marcus Qwertyus 01:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me like the kind of thing that might be searched for, actually. Somebody with no military knowledge who's curious might well think "truck that launches multiple rockets = Multiple Launch Rocket Truck, right?". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like he said, it was a valid enough search term that somebody couldn't find "multiple rocket launcher" and started an article on this name. Redirects are cheap. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huburban

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

Non-notable term. No legitimate uses found when googling, let alone academic information needed to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I am listing this after a 10 day PROD expired, but there was a declined PROD in the past, making it ineligible to be deleted by PROD later. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was thinking redirect to urban renewal, but this word doesn't seem to have caught on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEO/WP:MADEUP. Roscelese (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltimore Orioles minor league players. The structure of the target article does not currently allow a merger. Once to does, content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky

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

26-year-old AA (Double-A) minor league baseball player. Not notable enough for his own article, yet. Perhaps a merge? Alex (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol. He's still active, though doesn't appear to be a serious prospect. I don't consider "Bleacher Report" to be e reliable source. It's certainly not up to the caliber of "Baseball America" --Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the CHERUB and Henderson's Boys series

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

The article has no real-world notability and it's written with an in-universe perspective, it has zero third-party sources to verify notability and it's a plot-only description of a fictional work. It does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline or appropriate topics for lists. This is an unneeded content fork and meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive fan trivia, written in an in-universe style, with no sources to establish the real-world importance. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK from the main series article. Being a notable series doesn't entitle you to two different articles about the series. Moreover, this article is entirely an explanation of the plot, and Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOT#PLOT only. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a Content fork then why not merge it into either CHERUB or Henderson's Boys? Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offshoot to wikia or something. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Mob

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

Essay, something made up one night, see WP:NOT (prod removed) WuhWuzDat 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, author admits in deprod edit summary that this is a neologism; only source is a joke article in The Onion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author refutes assertion that term itself is a neologism, cites October 7, 1919 Article from Atlanta Constitution entitled "NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON"

Author also cites, in Wikipedia entry, well-documented evidence (in seven instances) the phenomenon/plot device the term describes does, in fact, exist. Author also refutes assertion that article cited in The Onion can be regarded only as a joke, and thus not as a source of the idea of "Monster Mobs". This article is piece of satire based on the aforementioned well-documented examples of this phenomenon/plot device. To assert that this article is can be considered nothing more than a joke is to suggest not only that the staff at The Onion are not serious, credible, and legitimate writers, but that satire itself is not a credible part of literature, when satire, as a genre, has earned great credibility by enhancing it.

Also, the phrase "Monster Mob", although used in a different context for a different meaning, is not technically a "neologism", as it is the name of an established company, MonsterMob Group Plc, http://www.monstermobgroup.plc.uk

I have created this page because, this phrase has been insufficiently attributed to a plot device (and phenomenon) that has been part of the narratives of multiple cultures for hundreds of years. While this is often referred to as by the terms similar in effect to "A group of torch-wielding villagers", this is not necessarily accurate, as not all mobs that pursue monsters are equipped with torches.

Likewise, a sufficient wikipiedia entry does not exist to describe this phenomenon/plot device. The phrase angry mob redirects to Ochlocracy, which implies that such a mob is a de facto form of government. However, these types of mobs are seldom driven by desire for governance, but rather for a desire for vigilantism.

This concept has been well-documented in various forms of media, in various cultures, for hundreds of years, especially in supernatural folklore. Do delete this article is, in effect, that deny that this well-documented phenomenon and plot device exists. Part of an encyclopedia's purpose is to convey ideas to those who wish to learn more about them.

Uses of the term "Monster Mob" found in search:

"NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON", Atlanta Constitution - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 7, 1919 ^[1]--MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Further Documented Use of the term "Monster Mob". "Monster Mob" used on page 51 of the 2009 biography of Abraham Lincoln entitled One Man Great Enough, written by John C. Waugh. ^[2]--MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Maybe merge this with Ochlocracy, it contains info not found there. Maybe keep as separate article. MonkeyPundit, you aren't helping yourself by defending The Onion's journalism. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion's Journalism I'm not defending The Onion as journalism. I'm defending it as literature. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - sources insufficient to establish notability that is separate from large, angry mobs in general.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monster delete. "Monster mob" is not in itself a distinct term of art, just a random bit of hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation [1] is absolutely referring to "monster mob" in the sense of a mob that is large in size, not a mob to deal with a monster as claimed, and I'd bet reference [2] uses it in the same context. The rest is WP:SYN and WP:MADEUP. The Onion as a source? Ye gads. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, MonkeyPundit, please top removing the SPA tags, as you did here and here I have re-added them and removing them again WILL be considered a refactoring of talk page comments. WuhWuzDat 06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonescent

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

While they had some briefly charting singles, there is no reliable sources available that are from non-paywalled national publications to verify the article. Mattg82 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However there are plenty of articles behind those paywalls. Those may be all that are needed to pass the requirement that the subject be verifiable, not verified. Anyone have a subscription the the archives of the Evening Times? Also, I found this interview from the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday along with these articles. Several are minor mentions, but a few have coverage. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 04:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their chart hits make them clearly notable. We don't require sources to be easily available to people sitting at their PC in order to have articles here. The UK News archive has 157 results - I'm happy to work through those and improve the article when the AFD closes. --Michig (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...in fact I've already made a start.--Michig (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and, I would say, finished.--Michig (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article deserves to stay, now that references and citations have been added. Andrew07 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Sporting Moments

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

A list based on a viewer poll broadcast on UK telesvion. This list is a regurgitation of a TV show that list "100 Best/Worst." This list alone is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article provides no context and the list itself is almost certainly copyright. Generic "100 greatest" space-filler TV with no independent critical sources, not even saying how abysmal such shows inevitably are, and this one was (I watched some of it, God knows why). The only cited source is the listings page from the broadcaster. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and probably all the other articles linked from 100 Greatest/100 Worst should be round filed too as WP:LISTCRUFT. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 100 Greatest/100 Worst. The 100 Greatest/Worst series is now a very well-known franchise on Channel 4, but I'm not sure whether there's enough of a case for the individual programmes to have articles. I would suggest a content debate, but since this article barely says anything other than what this programme is, there's not much to preserve. But I definitely think we should have an article when they make the inevitable 100 Greatest 100 Greatest programmes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is poorly sourced and does not belong on Wikipedia, unless all the moments are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 100 Greatest/100 Worst. Not notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Portillo (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Addison

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

A few passing mentions of this researcher in news and TV review sources are not enough for WP:N. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His asserted ability to hold his breath for six minutes might be worth a mention in an appropriate article, but that ability and a TV show do not demonstrate notability. PhGustaf (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete researcher where? He does not appear to be a professor either. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator cancelled his recommendation and removed the AfD template from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey (1998 film)

Afd statistics

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

Lacks sources, references, director, cast, (only Leslie Nielsen), plot and other links rather than IMDB. Also lacks notability Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:23 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cancel that, creator supplied more information

So this nomination was more of a complaint about lack of content that actually believing it non notable? You know, AFD is not supposed to be a demand and supply service.You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion in ths way. If you want an article expanded just ask. A quick check would have shown that a CBS production starring some very notable actors is more than an adequate subject,..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the page was only made two days ago. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:16 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep standard TV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roxxx

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

These marginal pornstar BLPs really need to be shown the door. This article was deleted only a short time ago, a deletion that was upheld at a DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 12). Unfortunately, someone took it upon themselves to recreate this tripe because she was nominated for a few AVN awards this year. The problem is that the shaky criteria for this is WP:PORNBIO, the legitimacy of which is in dispute, as its bar for inclusion is rather low. Since the subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and IMO WP:PORNBIO is inapplicable, this needs to be deleted and salted to prevent further abuse. I am especially sickened by this "neener neener" told you so! childishness posted by a porn bio proponent, 2 weeks after the DRV closed. Marginal BLPs are a sore enough subject as it is; they should not be tossed around like glorified trophies. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emphasis mine) Tabercil (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is not "a well-known and significant award or honor", that is the point herel it has no meaning or importance outside the closed circle that is the porn industry. The idea that the porn industry can nominate and award little gold stars for itself, and that somehow proves notability, is just ludicrous. This "we make our own notability thresholds" standard needs to be eliminated. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and so do the books and newspapers. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it.SPNic (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather enjoy a little T&A, Racquel Darrian in particular. I just want there to be articles where their notability is crystal-clear, rather than articles lie these which seem to be created for advertising purposes. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AVN and AFDB are unreliable, as with virtually all porn-related publications they do not break the kayfabe and report fiction and PR as fact. The only independent reliable (for some values of reliable) source is a mention in a listing page for a Howard Stern show, which is nowhere near this person having been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. As the nominator implies, we appear to be accepting a lower standard of sourcing for porn "star" biographies on the basis that virtually none of them have ever achieved any mainstream attention. That might just about cut it for Pokemon but these are (notionally) WP:BLPs, although most of them are more fictional character bios. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? So I interpret your argument right, then Variety can't be used for actor and movie-related articles and Billboard can't be used for music and musician-articles? Because according to the New York Times, that's what AVN is: "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records." Tabercil (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO support it, then it should be included; if they shouldn't support it, then they should be modified accordingly so they don't, and then the articles no longer supported can be AfD'd. In the meantime, trying to circumvent them because they shouldn't qualify an article for inclusion, IMHO, isn't quite kosher. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO. AVN Awardss are the top awards of the genre, reported by multiple newspapers every year around January, and is televised by Showtime so the argument they are not well-known is weak. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tabercil, Morbidthoughts, and SPNic. AVNs are the awards for a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not fly-by-night or awarded by some unknown web site. Dismas|^(talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout nominator - Per WP:NOTCENSORED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs) 23:02, December 4, 2010
Keep per Morbidthoughts & Tabercil Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO through multiple nominations of notable awards significant to that genre. It would seem reasonable that AVN Magazine would be just as acceptable for verfying the results of their various awards just as are the Screen Actors Guild in verifying their own SAG Awards, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists in verifying their own AFTRA Awards, and the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in verifying their own Academy Awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it. Tarc, I would call this a own-goal.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete im not going to go in the validity of having a biography on a glorifeid prostitute on wikiepdia. while there asre some porners like Jenna Jameson that have legitimate mainstream coverage in the mainstream media, there are also hunrdedds of porn stars whose names arent really known or covered outside of porn industry blogs and random little dinky ratholes on the Net. one criteria that we need to remember is WP:N and WP:V. especially the later, its difficult to find verifiable sources on these porn people because half the time the article writers dont even bother to find their real names or to figure out what fake name theyre using to whore. this isnt necessarily a disaster except that they rarely bother to find sources that cover this that would meet ANY standard of notability currently upeld by Wikipedia. articles like pople on Rahcel Roxx are only marginally more notable than your average garage band and posting articles on every hooker in California isnt going to fly unless you can find sources to verify some of these comments, which also dangerously push up on WP:BLP without reliable sources. to reiterate, this article should be deleted and ONLY rercreated once verifiable, WP:RSs are detected. User:Smith Jones 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, reading through that, I get a distinct feeling that the tl;dr version of your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As noted, she is notable per the standards established for this kind of article on/by Wikipedia. If you don't think she should be, then propose a change to the criteria, don't go calling for "Speedy Delete"s on articles that meet those standards in an effort to get them changed. In addition, as mentioned before, it's WP:COMMONSENSE that AVN is a WP:RS with regard to the AVN Awards. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me but I don't see how I'm supposed to take your points seriously when you can't put aside your personal moral objections to Roxxx and others in her field. So, why not try that again without the ad hominem attacks and keep a WP:CIVIL tongue next time. As for "not bothering to find their real names", would you make the same accusations against those who write about John Wayne, Jon Stewart, Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Martin Sheen, Nicholas Cage, Nathan Lane, or Diane Keaton and refer to them by their stage names? Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably just you, because i have never said or implied anything like that. I dont have any personal moral objections to Roxxx or anyone involved in the pornographic industr.y Unlike many politicians and business tycoons, she at least has never killed anyon, never robbed anyone, never violated someone elses rights or despoiled the environment. i might not perosnaly care much for pornography but compared to some of the things that other people who have articles do she might as well be a saint.
however, my personal feelings -- and YOURS -- are irrelevant. And nice try with that list of names. Unlike this article, the articles for Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, and Martin Sheen bother to mention those people's real names. This article does not. It uses her stage name (Rachel Roxxx) and no one has bothered to produce any source that actually contains her real name. I totally get why the article is called Rachel Roxxx and why it would use that name, but in the other articles the person's REAL name is also at least briefly mentioned in the bio box. this oversight would be completely unacceptable with any article on any one else other than a porn star, but for some reason on the topic of porn actresses every attempt at verifiability and WP:BLP goes out the window for some reason. I really don't understand why articles on porn stars are always so shoddy and poorly substantiated, but it's getting really annoying. regardless o whether or not you think that their industry is good or not, it's disrespectful to them -- and more important, the reader to have such sparse and poorly-sourced articles on them. User:Smith Jones 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, they use pseudonyms for a reason. Y'know, something about there being a nasty stigma associated by some people about pornography. And there are porn star articles where their real names were redacted at the star's request. One recent example I can name offhand: Flower Tucci. And there's an nice lil' OTRS ticket behind it as well. Tabercil (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think you're being civil when you call her a whore ("...theyre using to whore.") and suggest that she's a hooker ("...posting articles on every hooker")? But really, why is listing a legal name so important? It has nothing to do with their notability. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Now is the time to snap the pornographers' stranglehold on wikipedia. [9] Let's send a message tonight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I have no idea what to say to this, other than I have no idea what those two are talking about, and that's a pretty clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Not to mention...let's say it again...the article meets ALL of Wikipedia's own standards for inclusion. Not to mention that saying we should delete an article to "send a message" smacks of WP:POINTY. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Popular article, probably gets more hits daily than 95% of all articles, exists on many wikis, has sufficient sourcing to show notability. Has three XXXs in last name, I think that has some deep literary meaning.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AVN spam - not notable woman being used for promotion of a industry award. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more AVN apam than an article about some one receiving a BAFTA award is BAFTA spam when the awards are listed. Listing and verifying one's awards is exactly as encouraged by guideline to show notability per WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a better analogy would be a comic convention nomination for "Best New Superhero Comic of the Year" being used to assert notability for someone's comic book. A circle-jerk of you-congratulate-me-and-I'll-congratulate-you is not suitable for notability, and I do not feel that ANYBIO's "significant nomination" criteria was meant for this kind of low-hanging fruit. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily make the same case against the Oscars, or the Golden Globes, or... IMHO, (a) winning an major industry award, or (b) being nominated for multipe major industry awards, is a strong argument for notability, and she satisfies (b). And, as has been pointed out multiple times, according to Wikipedia's own standards she is notable. Whether or not those standards are valid is not a subject for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Oscars have a much longer-established history of notability and easily demonstrable significance. These "what about X?" arguments are really weak, bordering on pathetic. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how many years must an award be in existence for it to be notable, according to you. Dismas|^(talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this proves notability, I was so shocked I had to do a screengrab of it!!!1--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't matte the # of years, the real issue is MAINSTREAM media coverage in recognzied and respcted WP:RS and WP:N sources. the problem here is that, unlike other porn actresses w ho have articles, her entire noabiltiy exists within a very small niche that has little mainstream coverage. I could create an award for unnotable garage bands and nominate every single garage band 100x and it still wouldnt be okay. User:Smith Jones 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the linked piece -- having trouble getting this one to come up again. [10]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/reply to Milowent -- according to WP:AUTO, the merest fact that the subjet of this WP:BLP is also an editor on Wikeipida is even more of a reason why this article should be subject to the fullest cruinty of policy. We cant just take on credit that everything anyone says about themselves is true and the risk of WP:COI if she edits her own article extensively or particpates in the debate above and beyond a regular user is great. User:Smith Jones 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:...I'm calling shenanigans on Milowent's posted "pictures". There is no User:Rachel Roxxx on wikipedia, and I really, really doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would allow the language in that second note to appear! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the wording is suspiciously similar to this, legit, fundraiser ad. ~~Milowent,~~ I'm all for assuming good faith, but what evidence do we have that ~~you~~these images haven't been photoshopped ~~those images~~ in a WP:POINTY attempt to get this article deleted? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I !voted keep above, so I don't want to get it deleted. Beyond that, you are right that it seems very suspicious.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that case, my apologies for directing POINTY accusations your way, then. But yeah, this stinks, and badly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, since she has received no awards, only one nomination as an actor/performer; nominations for scenes are not classified as performer nominations by AVN itself, and are listed separately from actor/performer nominations by AVN itself. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, since AVN Awards are not generally "well-known" and "significant". Perhaps their top awards might fall under that description, but no one can reasonably argue that all 75 pages [11] worth of nominations qualify, across-the-board. And it's very hard to argue the significance or independence of those awards, since if you review the magazine's online archives it becomes pretty clear that the awards are closely associated with advertising purchases - pull a random issue and you'll likely see that 90-95% of the releases with half-page ads or larger end up with nominations. The subject pretty clearly fails the GNG, and there's no sign of enough verifiable content to construct an encyclopedic article from. I'm also struck by the frequency with which porn performers whose articles are deleted pick up these noms, making me wonder about marketing campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please assume more good fiath sirr; while I do not agree with those who would want to ekep this article on Wikipedia, its also unfair to intimate that they are working for some company or are paid shills of the porn idnustry. I believe that everyone on either sid eof this debate means well and is tryin to aplly policies are fairly and as chivalricly as possible. User:Smith Jones 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.Reply. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that there might be some shenanigans going on with the award noms. Certainly there are porn promoters out there trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool -- see a recent runin I had with one of them over the Vicky Vette article [12] -- and I wonder if there are a few attempts to game Wikipedia decisions. I don't think the "paid shills" are right here, but they may be savvy enough to try to affect the outcomes in discussions like this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.Reply and Apology - my apologies then i misinterpreted what you were asaying. I have no doubt that their corrupt forces outsides of the Wiki who seek to influence our proces for political or economic gian. while i do not think that any editor here reading this is part of any dishoenst or devious campaigning, i have also no doubt that there are corrupt forces outside of the Wiki who seek to manipulate this process for their own selfish purposes, and that they might be beyond these unnotable restrictions on our editorial containment.
.Sincere apologies -- I would also like to apologize for the vandalism and hatreful comments made by the thuggish editor User:96.44.132.23, an non-reggie "editor" who has threatened to kill you or your grandkids on your page in order to win a content dispute on your talk page. this is beyond the pale and i am reprehensed by this behavior. User:Smith Jones 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography without substantial sources, only spam from the porn industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1964 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, Morbidthoughts and Tabercil. Please stick to policy based arguments. Whether AVN is an acceptable source or not has been discussed many times before without any consensus against it. So there is not point to start that discussion over and over again in every second AfD. Whether pornographic actors in general should have articles in Wikipedia or not is also no question to be discussed here. Testales (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above and as per last time and as per policy. Testales makes a couple of good points. --78.101.253.29 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any merger discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Orpheus

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been previously deleted and still does not meet notability guidelines. It also has been edited repeatedly by the subject of the article leading me to believe that it is nothing more than a vanity page.

Redirect to The Cassandra Complex (band). Still can't see any evidence of notability independent of the band. There's no reason why individual band members can't have their subsequent work summarised on the page of the band, and if that becomes too much for one page, then we can consider a split, but all of the sources cited here appear to be incidental mentions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to The Cassandra Complex (band). He's certainly notable for his musical career with The Cassandra Complex and (briefly) Sisters of Mercy, and his other work and writing adds to this. The amount of verifiable content, however, means that a merge to the band may be the best option.--Michig (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When is this article going to be merged or deleted? Theseus1776 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be an awful lot of verifiable material here, actually. And I agree that the musical career alone should be enough for a keep.ArchieOof (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who just created their account. Spawn of RodneyOrpheus? This page must be combined with that of Cassandra Complex. Much of this information is repeated or created by the subject of the post. It has been deleted before and reappeared. Theseus1776 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Jin Yong's novels

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

All material appears to be original research, the article has no inline citations for verifiability and there doesn't seem to be third-party sources to verify notability. The external links are apparently for a Chinese forum, not a reliable website and the same applies to the two notes used within the article. I don't think that this article meets the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This appears to be mostly an indiscriminate collection of information and an unnecessary content fork primarily written with an in-universe perspective. I believe it meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this really is a Wikipedia article in any way, shape or form Sadads (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is about fictional timelines taken from Chinese sword-fighting novels. Therefore, apart from the novel, there can exist few other third-party sources, unless you count in those on other forums and discussion pages. As for the lack of inline citations, this is because I have previously separated parts of this timeline into segments (see the templates transcluded into the article such as this one) and thus all citations to the novel has been moved to those templates. I hope this clears some things up. No News ! 02:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Newfraferz87 is right that third party sources are hardly available. I don't think the article fits into any of the six types listed at WP:IINFO. The article is a compilation of the plot summaries of all the novels, with the events listed in chronological order, therefore it's not exactly content forking. I think it's useful in helping readers of the novels understand the flow of events better. Again, quotations and information extracted directly from the primary source (the work of fiction, i.e. the novel) do not constitute original research. Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the entire article consists of purely OR material. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking third party sources to verify notability of this chronological topic. And as a second reason, this article Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOT#PLOT only, whereas there is no third-party who has said anything out-of-universe about this chronology. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter S. Williams

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

Obscure academic, with a junior position at an institution too small and obscure to even rate an article (fails WP:PROF). No indication that his apologetics or ID advocacy has gotten any notice (fails WP:CREATIVE & WP:BIO). There appears to be no published coverage that is either third party or reliable (let alone both). Disputed WP:PROD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim to notability seems to be that we should consider him notable as an evangelical Protestant apologist, whatever that is. Unfortunately, that is not how notability is measured on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous evangelical Protestants notable in the field of Christian apologetics. There is however no indication that Williams is one of them (so I get your point). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is not notable, upon my research. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WiSmart

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

A notability tag has been added and removed from the article a couple times with no notability established. The article was then WP:PROD'd and that was removed with an edit summary of "it's not the easiest thing to add notability to a brand new product..please be patient and wait at least for an update before change the status twice in a week..otherwise open a ticket for discussi". That leads me to believe that the editors who have been working on this article think of Wikipedia as an advertising platform. The only two "sources" are an article about a related product from Google and a mention in a blog which merely shows that the product exists. Note: The creator of the article was blocked due to their username being the same as the company that makes the WiSmart. Dismas|^(talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing present in the article when I reviewed it consisted of a blog (unreliable source), and the SF Chronicle which is a reliable source, but the article itself makes no mention of the WiSmart so it does not verify anything nor counts for anything towards notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by admin HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) Ray^Talk 03:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everest (mathematical competition)

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

Unreferenced article on a generic maths competition recreated after deletion byt he same WP:SPA who created it. No claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unable to find any references to the competition on the web, but this may be due to language difficulties (the competition is in Georgia the country, not Georgia the US state). The translated linked website doesn't have any information on coverage of the contest, but does list results for only 2009 and 2010. If no references are found to support the article, I would say Delete. Syrthiss (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was NOT recreated after deletion. It was undeleted by me. It was created by someone else. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you are both correct. The new account created it on Nov 28, and it was speedied. It was then recreated on Dec 2, speedied, and restored. Syrthiss (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can the account that created this be called a "single-purpose account" when it's only a few days old and has such a short edit history? Everyone's editing history contains edits on only one topic when it's brand-new. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I tend to agree that this didn't qualify for speedy deletion, I can find no evidence on Google News, Scholar or Books for notability of this recently-founded country-specific math competition. There is a corresponding article on the Georgian Wikipedia that Google Translate renders semi-intelligible to English speakers, but it lacks references (or indeed any external links). --Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliably-published third party sources that would lend notability to the subject. I agree that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom says "No claim of notability", which is false. The first line of the article is "Everest is one of the most famous mathematical competitions in Georgia." —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I tried looking at the Georgian version of the page for sources but no, then searching on the heading of that article in Georgian finds the WP page, the official site, some meta search engines and eventually blog entries. Nothing that looks like a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − I managed to find some sources first time. For example here and here. The latter says that 10,000 students are registered for the competition.— Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Upon reflection, the article seems to be a copyvio of that second reference. I'll tag it now. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion information

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Surplus value in Islam

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

Entirely OR, not supportable by available sources, improperly formatted with no improvement in 11 months MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this might be rescuable, but the most preliminary of searches revealed that this article's creator, Nasireddin (talk · contribs), dumped this same text across several article talk pages. I deduce that dumping it in article space as well was simply more of the same and not really the creation of an article. As such, I think it appropriate to delete this content and leave a proper stub on such a subject to be started afresh at our leisure. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTESSAY ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of battle of white plains

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

Not well written and entirely unverified article. I cannot find any kind of evidence of an urban myth of ghostly activity based on a supposed event in a battle which is recounted in a novel--but this convolution means I could not find a speedy category. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax: zero ghits for "Lars Oberwith"; no relevant ghits for "Matthew Calek". Your AfD and my speedy overlapped so it's now tagged as speedy. I propose to leave it that way. andy (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent--well done. Thanks. The article should soon go the way of Mix Master K. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Meineke

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Meineke is notable as the director of both the Ohio Spiritual Warfare Center and the Padre Pio Center for Deliverance Counseling. He performs Christian deliverance for people free of charge. He has written on the subject and has answered many questions concerning spiritual warfare and the Catholic faith at the organizations forums. He is especially notable because the specialization of Christian deliverance is a very small field. Friuli (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible speedy candidate under WP:A7. I can't find any coverage of this person in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage, and I don't see much assertion of notability in the article. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall under A7 but it certainly falls afoul of WP:GNG. Can't find any significant coverage of the man. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight 64

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

Looks like a hoax. I can't find any reference to this product on Google, or even on Youtube (as the article creator claims). This is such a poorly written article -- it's almost unintelligible -- with no value whatsoever. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hoax or not, there's little evidence for the existence, much less the notability, of this product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Lexis-Nexis Academic for "All News" using the phrase "Moonlight 64" and could find no mention of any product under that name. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that it really contradicts itself, in addition to a complete lack of references, I think this is clearly a hoax article. --Dorsal Axe 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Notes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company

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

Non-notable company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. The references listed are short single item statements within a bigger article about another topic. I see some primary sources, but the article lacks secondary sources. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote the article myself and I have posted my reasoning to keep the article on the its talk page. Themeparkgc Talk 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As indicated in the nomination, the sources are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article. If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out. ttonyb (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article clearly has tons of coverage is well sourced and written, and is on a topic of interest that many would probably expect to find on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 November 2010

Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it so, please point out "non-trivial" secondary coverage about the company (not a very, very brief statement in a reference that would support the founder of the company) that meets WP:RS. Just being a topic of interest that might be of interest to readers is not a criteria in notability. There are many interesting subjects that are not notable that do not meet notability criteria and therefore are not on Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are in the article, it the sources establish notabilityTHISBITES 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

Comment – Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article. ttonyb (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer yourself to the "References" section at the bottom of the page and look through the linksTHISBITES 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

Comment – I have looked. Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article. I am willing to change my mind and agree with you that there are adequate sources if you can indeed point them out. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article is of Wikipedia standard and this company is well notable in the Theme Park industry, creating world class attractions around the world. GoldCoastGuy (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please indicate how this article meets the criteria in WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:COMPANY's primary criteria for notability are as follows: Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources. To satisfy the audience criteria, the company must be covered by national or international media. Sudden Impact has been covered in the UK, Malaysia, Australia and Canada - more than sufficient international coverage to pass this criteria. The independence of sources criteria states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles". There are several newspaper articles referenced within the article (all of which satisfy WP:RS) including Adelaide Now, The Age, Courier Mail, Gold Coast Bulletin, Mirror, The Star, and Today Tonight. These are in addition to reports from the Associated Press and Canadian Press. None of this material is press material, self-published nor any of the other exceptions listed in this criteria. The final criteria is that of depth of coverage. To satisfy this criteria it needs to have coverage more than a permastub (which it clearly does) by reliable sources. Although there are some sources which do come under the "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" section, these are very minimal and only form part of the infobox. Coverage from Park World should be considered reliable because they have an editorial oversight and all articles have been published in print and online. Printed publication has been completed by the UK's Datateam. Similarly, Attractions Management Magazine has an editorial team with all articles published in print (by Leisure Media) and online. Together these two sources satisfy WP:V and WP:RS which results in depth of coverage criteria being satisfied also. Therefore I conclude that the Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company does pass the criteria of notability for a company. Hopefully this is enough of an explanation to solve this deletion discussion. Themeparkgc Talk 05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Thanks for your explanation; however, what you fail to focus on is the statement, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." A national or international article of a trivial nature does not meet the criteria. The articles you mentioned, as I stated above, are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page (and above) are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article. If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out. As I indicated to THEBITES, if you can point to specific adequate secondary sources in the article, I would be more than happy to agree and change my mind about the nomination. Every time I have asked for the specific references, I am only presented with vague references to a publication, not a specific published article. ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would deem the coverage in Park World and Attractions Management Magazine ([13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] - as referenced in the article) as sufficient coverage that is non-trivial. As I explained in my previous comment above, these sources should be considered reliable ones. These sources are non-trivial because they are wholly about the company, its work and/or founder and are not "sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules" (which is the only criteria of trivial coverage that sort of applies here - all the other criteria is unrelated). As for the sources from local and international media, regardless of whether they have trivial coverage according to the guideline this still helps to establish notability. From WP:COMPANY: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." According to the criteria in the audience section it is irrelevant whether the sources are trivial or non-trivial as neither of these are mention in the section quoted in its entirety above. The other two criteria do, but audience does not. Hopefully this clarifies what I am trying to say with the specific examples listed. I feel it passes all three areas of the notability guideline for companies. Themeparkgc Talk 07:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, thanks for the explanation. It appears we will have a disagreement about the sources and their validity. We may need to agree to disagree. Let me discuss each one. [18] appears to be an article about their laser tag product and not really "non-trivial" coverage. [19]] and [20] are articles about the company's CEO. Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris. In addition, since it sourced as his opinion (interview), it is not really secondary coverage. [21] this is really trivial coverage. It is about the attraction, not the company. The Attractions Management article is an article about the company's CEO. Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris. In addition, since it is an interview, it is not really secondary coverage. Again, thanks for your explanation and my best to you. ttonyb (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree to disagree as long as the article isn't deleted :P Regards Themeparkgc Talk 07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note To Closer: Please notice the single purpose account, and blocked editor who voted here. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise the closing admin to look at this search, which it definately passes Verify test and in my opinion it has become a Noteworthy company for what it has accomplished in the entertainment business. So my advise, is to Strongly Keep this would be my close.BLUE _DOG^TN 04:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The nature of the events the company has been associated with are impressive, but notability is not inherited, and there's a lack of good quality independent citations.--Korruski^Talk 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Deputy Defense Minister

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

Fails WP:N. A number of people have been described as a Taliban Deputy Defense Minister or somesuch (the article for some reason misses Abdul Ghani Baradar, and it looks like there are even more people with the same function). But no evidence is available that indicates that that function is sufficiently notable to warrant an article here, and no actual information on the function is given in the article. Fram (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, other form of name gives the results I couldn't find for the article title. Fram (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

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

Fails WP:BIO. For this WP:BLP, no reliable independent indepth sources are available. The only two non-US goevrnment sources in the article are a blog and an article in the Miami Herald that mentions his name in a list of released detainees. Google Books[22] lists Wikipedia republishers, the only result through Google Scholar has one sentence about him[23], Google News Archive only gives the name in a list of detainees[24], and regular Google gives only 46 hits[25]. Previous AfD (5 years ago) was listed as "no consensus". Fram (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by blog you mean Andy Worthington's articles? Why Obama Must Continue Releasing Yemenis From Guantánamo Why Obama Must Continue Releasing Yemenis From Guantánamo and UN Secret Detention Report (Part Three): Proxy Detention, Other Countries’ Complicity, and Obama’s Record. He tells parts of Mar’i's story as one of the first victims of “extraordinary rendition” in the “War on Terror”. If you do the Google search with his core name "Jamal Mar'i" -wikipedia you get about 3000 hits including this one. IQinn (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, by "blog" I mean the external link in the article to [26]. Are we certain that all these Jamal Mari links are about this one, or are there different people with the same and similar names involved, as is often the case with these Guantanamo related articles? Note also that many of these hits are from the same pages over and over again, as indicated by the only 69 distinct Google hits[27]. Fram (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks to IQinn. Fram (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Laos

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

Unremarkable, unreferenced list. Delete or merge content to article about Laos. Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I'd suggest merging this would somehow give inappropriate undue weight to the subject. I honestly don't see how a list of malls would fit anywhere in the Laos article (as the most generic example I could give). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, but I thought it would be fair to leave that option open. I was in Vientiane last week - and it certainly wasn't for shopping. I don't think the article creator has ever been anywhere near Laos.--Kudpung (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little content, and it is unsuitable for merging. The fact that it's a list of shopping malls does not help. (I am of the belief that such lists should be nuked from orbit.) ----Divebomb is not British 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, Wikipedia is not a directory. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Burma

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

A one-item list of shopping malls in a city that does not have a Wikipedia page. I suggest the list should be either deleted or its content merged to the Burma article. Kudpung (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly I am biased against lists of shopping malls in general, but this is a terrible, terrible article and there isn't even any real content to merge. ----Divebomb is not British 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suppose you could say it has "content" so it doesn't qualify for A3, but still, geez. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The arguments to keep are weak, and mostly do not focus on the actual reason for then nomination, which is the lack of reliable sources. Given the concern of avoiding systemic bias redirecting seems appropriate. There are two suggestions for an appropriate target, since two users supported Meenkunnam I will redirect it there, but the subject is still open to discussion of course. Any content worth merging can still be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Catholic Church Meenkunnam

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

Unsourced page on a building that fails WP:N. There are no Google books[28], Scholar[29] or News Archive[30] results, and only 13 Google results, all of them Wikipedia based. This means that we don't have a single source outside Wikipedia available about this church. Making the Search terms less like the actual article title returns some things[31], but still not sufficient to establich notability. The famous Pieta also gives very few results[32]. Fram (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also for lack of (non-Wikipedia) references. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems notable, but needs secondary sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the sourcing/notability issue one of language rather than existence? Perhaps Hindi (or other language sources) exist. Perhaps someone in the WP India can help find some relevant sources... LadyofShalott 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. The church seems like a very notable one in India, there is bound to be an Indian-language website talking about it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this church notable? Having a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta? I've got a copy too. Is my house notable? --Quartermaster (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a claim of notability regarding the pilgrimage routes. Now, I am not saying it actually is notable for this or anything else, just that it may be. It would be nice if someone with access to and ability to read materials other than in English could see if there is anything in Hindi or some other Indian language that would support notability. LadyofShalott 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the references are very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added few ref sites to the article. the page is very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobanjohn (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to the very similar last two comments: the sources are the diocese (not independent), Wikimapia (not reliable or significant), Chruches in India.com (not significant), and again Wikimapia. None of these helps to reach the minimal requirements of WP:N, our notability guideline. That the church exists is quite clear, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you want to keep the article on this church, you have to provide reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of it, not just passing mentions or the name and address. Fram (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I am sympathetic to the problems of Indian articles and sourcing, but really we have nothing to show this church is any more notable that the scores of American church articles that regularly get deleted. Not a perfect resolution, but since it seems to be the big deal in Meenkunnam (its half the content of that short article), let's redirect there until and unless independent notability is shown.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good suggestion, esp. given that several days since my initial query along these lines, no one has apparently found the evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese of Kothamangalam as that's the next hierarchical stop for this church on en.wiki. Nothing really to say that it's notable. Churches in Kerala/Tamil Nadu will get English press coverage at least in terms of Mass/Feast listings etc if they tend to be high profile. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 7–1 Blackburn Rovers F.C.

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

Individual football match. Not notable enough for a standalone article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also suggest inclusion of Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C., for same reasons. FA Charity Shield and FA Community Shield matches, Champions League Finals, FA Cup and European Cup Finals are all examples of matches notable enough for inclusion, but all three articles seem to be citing the match scores as grounds for notability. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Like the reasons in here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., also there are planty of matches like this who also have articles (each one and his reason), also Liverpool, Arsenal and few more clubs have articles like this, so you should check all of tham. – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if those articles should be proposed for deletion, then feel free to propose them. I only browsed the Man U matches category for similar articles, but no doubt there are many more similar articles for other teams. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough match to warrant its own article. No records were broken, nothing was decided, it's just a match with a lot of goals. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm generally pretty forgiving about allowing full articles for individual games that have some claim to fame. But this really doesn't; it's simply a home win with more goals than usual. No records were set or unusual things happened, and the coverage does not seem significantly different to any other Premier League game involving one of the big teams. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENT. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent reason given as to why this match is notable. Giant Snowman 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Few would have expected anything but a Manchester United win. What no one would have expected, however, was the magnitude of the win" - I must be one of the few as I didn't even know they were playing... Pure vanity from a supporter of one side. Fails WP:NPOV and notability ('equals the record').(Disclaimer: Peridon is not a Blackburn supporter not a Londoner and couldn't care less who wins the League or the Cup.) Peridon (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That text appears to have been copied from Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.:"The two teams went into the match at opposite ends of the table, and few would have expected anything but a Manchester United win. What no one would have expected, however, was the magnitude of the win" Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Actually, looks a bit copy&paste, but can't find it anywhere that doesn't look like a mirror. I see that the 9-0 article reached no consensus at AfD. Peridon (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – For WP:NOT to not apply, individual sports games/matches should have some evidence that they themselves are notable. In soccer (upset American here), any kind of cup final would have notability, as would something like this that has often been written about in reliable sources through the years. (not just in the aftermath of the game, or else every game would be notable). There appears to be nothing notable about this match by Wikipedia standards. It was a blowout, but that's all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual matches are generally not notable (per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT) and if somewhat notable can be included in an appropriate parent article (such as league or team season article). Also, the title is not clear, as it's a score without a date. Other games between the two teams could have ended with the same score. Might as well start writing articles like Montreal Canadien 5 New Jersey Devils 1, or Boston Red Sox 7 New York Yankees 3 otherwise...--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per nom and Invitrovanitas. Wikipedia is not ESPN. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for this one, there have already been several wins just as big this season alone by other teams. Ipswich game appears to be somewhat notable though due to the scoreline (there would presumably be grounds to delete it should the scorline be surpassed).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable match. --Carioca (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the note that this not notable enough for Wikipedia --Pretty Green (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busking in Whitsunday

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

Panhandling in a city is not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, theoretically, it could be notable. It just isn't, in this case. Yakushima (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random intersection of topics. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cartwright (artist)

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

Autobiography of dubious notability can find nothing on Google, one newspaper article from 1978 is hardly significant coverage. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a public forum? I second the deletion of this article - bless his cotton sox but Michael aint notable. Mark^Dask 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no significant exhibitions or commissions. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by JzG. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuantBox

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

non notable software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Jasra

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

I do not believe that the article's subject currently meets WP:BIO inclusion requirements.

The cited sources are predominantly primary source articles written by the article's subject (and the cited book is self-published); by themselves I don't believe these constitute the kind of independent coverage needed for notability. A Google News search turns up many more articles Jasra has written, but only a handful that are about him: the best is probably this, an interview. There is also the cited "invesp" source, which does mention him (ranking him 39th in an editorial list of web marketers in 2009), but I do not believe that these two isolated pieces of coverage are, sufficient to demonstrate notability either.

A prod tag was removed by an IP. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator states, there's a lot of articles written by him in WebProNews, but coverage about him is scant. I would discount the Invesp articel as a source. This is a company that builds eCommerce sites so it's not clear what sort of real editorial decision making goes into its list. The WebProNews article is also problematic as he is being interviewed in a publication for which he does an awful lot of writing, which is to say that I discount it on the basis of it not being sufficiently independent. The Adage ranking is some algorithm derived listing so there is no decision to notability to how it works, and in any case, it actually provide no other information than a ranking so it fails to be significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote the original article - Please go ahead and delete this article, but do it right away. bctg23 —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Thomas Coffman

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

I contested the prod myself simply because I think AfD would work better in this case. I cannot find any sources that this person exists; all Google comes up with are Wikipedia and mirrors. Moreover, I can't even find evidence of a Time magazine article called "Fashion Forefathers". Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even bother with the {{adw}} tag because the creator made the article in January 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For somebody "widely credited as the inventor of the reversible fleece jacket", there is a distinct lack of any sources that I could find that give him this credit. The claim of an article in Time Magazine is problematic. The citation only gives a month for a magazine that publishes weekly. Time Magazine's online listing for August 2001 articles doesn't shorw any article with this title but then it may not be comprehensive. The article also makes a claim for first registering with the US Patent Office. A search of the USPTO database using inventor names of "Coffman-Bradley-T", and "Coffman-Bradley" per USPTO search instructions yield 0 results. Using wildcards of "Coffman-B$" and "Coffman-T$" gets lists of patents -- none of which are for reversible fleece jackets. --- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by JzG. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

454 Entertainment

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

pure unadulterated spam, speedy declined WuhWuzDat 07:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a second look at the article as I'm the person who originally declined the speedy deletion, and I don't see any notability in any chart singles. It could've easily fit A7 in my opinion. There is quite a fair bit of spam as well, but no pronouns were included to make me wonder if speedy deletion was necessary. Minima c (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any indication of notability using online resource either. Aeonx (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Closing as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100+ Great Games

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

No indication as to why listing 100 games would be notable enough for an encyclopedia. In fact it seems to be one persons personal opinion on what they think are 100 great games. I did nominate this via WP:PROD before but the deletion template was removed with no explanation as to why the article is notable. 5 albert square (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Jayron32 07:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agreed WP:CSD#A7. Aeonx (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Actually reads like one of the many CD-ROM compilations of basic or terrible public ___domain computer games you find for $5 in a cheap software section at a superstore (or with adapted board games like Parcheesi, Connect Four or Yahtzee generically named and having elements genericalized or changed colors); easily meets A7 nonetheless. Nate • (chatter) 10:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It probably can be speedied based on no showing of importance, as incidcated by Jayron above. Basically, this is from a newcomer who isn't familiar with what can be put in a Wikipedia article, and seems to be his or her own list of video games. Mandsford 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can't work out if it's OR or, as MrsChimpf says, a compliation box. Either way, there's no indication of importance, and it's borderline nonsense.--Korruski^Talk 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and here's a little something for the users who chose to sling mud at each other rather than discuss the article itself

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drag (music genre)

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

This article for the last few months has simply been an ad space on wikipedia for special interests. It's also based on lies/gossip and not facts. More info: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Drag_%28music_genre%29#Salem:_NOT_DRAG

May I also request, before jumping to conclusions in regards to whether the sources are reliable and not pure promotion and reporting on future news (most artists mentioned have ONLY just recently made releases a couple of months ago. these articles had been written up at the beginning of the year) and assumptions:

source: http://www.dummymag.com/features/2010/09/20/salem-interview-you-re-not-scared-it-s-music-/

Part of the interview reads as follows:

There are lots of names that have been pan handled about but you guys describe yourselves as Drag, right?

John: We never described ourselves as Drag.

Jack: I think someone said that we did but we haven’t described ourselves as that.

They're referring to sources earlier in the year, such as a music critic from The Guardian and another from Pitchfork. Here is the Guardian article, which was reported first: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/mar/08/scene-heard-drag

Scott Wright (from the music department at the Guardian writes):

"When Salem first stepped from the shadows in late 2007, people had fun describing their creepy and creeping sound: screwgaze, cave crunk, ghost juke and crimsonwave were just a few of the proposed monikers. Now, as a herd of imitators (White Ring), admirers (Fostercare) and like-minded lost souls (Balam Acab and oOoOO) haul themselves into the murky, flickering spotlight, Salem themselves have come up with the best genre name of all: drag.

Again, reporting false information. They point out Salem as the forefront and supposed pioneer of this so called genre, which Salem have denied ever labeling their music under "drag", as it sates in the aforementioned. Others were simply pigeonholed and called imitators, simply dragged along the writers marketing purpose: http://www.nypress.com/article-21562-brooklyns-vanishing-witch-house.html Diskotech (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another non-notable music genre neologism, delete as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Diskotech has made strong vandalism campaign because all his contributions that contained false facts has been undone by many other users (revision history). This genre is definitely notable. It has been citated in countless reliable sources. --GreenZeb (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I deleted spam and promotion by non-notable artists and labels, that makes it vandalism? That's preposterous. Your profile on here saids you're from Latvia, that's where the IP reverting back such false information and non-notable acts came from. Interesting. Diskotech (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly IS interesting that you seem to believe that my IP-the IP "reverting back such false information and non-notable acts"- comes from Lativia. Curious, since as I am a student currently dorming at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, as my IP will confirm, and thus, unsurprisingly, reside in Chicago. While your removal of certain artists and labels is open to debate, you have further repeatedly added the profoundly incorrect claim that it's cultural origin was in the 90's, continually added the unfounded original research claim that Billy Corgan was a notable influence, repeatedly added the unsupported and untrue claim that Drag is the same thing as Horrorcore and Illbient, and continually added the "marketing scheme" claim, which is unsupported by anything outside of your personal speculation. Furthermore, your claim that it has been used as "ad space on wikipedia for special interests" is incorrect-I added most of those artists and labels, and I am not involved in any of those bands and labels, nor do I personally know anyone who is. I added them because they are relevant to this subject. If you feel they are not notable, I'm open to debate about this. This page has numerous cited notable sources making reference to it's existence as a musical term, and while there is debate about this term, the fact that it exists as a notable term in the music press is indisputable. Thus, it passes WP:MUSIC. Your advocacy of it's deletion are blatantly motivated by your personal distaste for the genre and not by anything resembling a credible argument for it's deletion. You have repeatedly disrespected Wikipedias policy of neutrality, and seem to think Wikipedia exists as a method to publish your own personal opinions. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not getting into debate in regards to your IP (that is not in question), let alone getting into an argument over it (this is not the place). I will repeat though, there was someone with an IP from Latvia doing similar things to what you were doing, in regards to reverting material that can be easily deemed as publicity (which I deleted a lot off from here). I was not the only one claiming similarities to Illbient. If you compare the two supposed genres, you start to see striking similarities. This was brought up months ago it seems, from another source. Which I agree with. Further more, I never stated Billy Corgan is a notable influence. I merely reverted back that Billy Corgan can be seen as a pioneer for this supposed genre (hence 90s), as he seems to fit these supposed 'drag' artist overall "sound", even though 'Eye' single was never dubbed this 'drag' term that has only appeared in recent months (although, all the more proves the 'drag' term is not needed, as it easily can be identified by other labels/genres/terms that currently exist). Which actually is very similar to other genres and in fact, can be covered in other well known established genres, that people have agreed on and has been pushed and acknowledged by various artists etc. Drag/Witchouse has not been acknowledge by those accused of supposedly labeling a certain "sound". It's a lie and Salem have cleared that up. Also, your assumption based on my personal taste is simply that: assumption. It can easily be said you're clearly backing and involved in these special interests groups surrounding all this supposed "hype". If we are gonna start accusing and assuming, we may as well assume I am the Queen of England and you are behind Tri-Angle records (a supposed drag label that emerged just a few months ago), a label that a music critic from the Guardian supposedly claimed has 'kept track' of this so called movement, without even releasing a single release from any artist at the time. The Guardian was reporting on something that had not even happened yet. How is that logical, let alone appropriate reporting? As for 'marketing scheme/agenda', I have explained it to you in the discussion page on said article. This is clear irresponsibility of journalism. This is why I've stated, do not confuse respectable reporters with music critics. Two different departments within an organization. One of the other does not justify or make the other more creditable. For one, one reports facts. The other apparently likes to report gossip/rumour/lies, as pointed out by Salem. But really, this comes to no surprise, the entertainment industry is known to report gossip/lies for marketing and profit gain. Diskotech (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe claims you restored repeatedly, even if they were originally made by other people, were unsupported original research. Restoring unsupported original research because you happen to agree with it is vandalism. My statement on your dislike for the genre is not speculation at all: you have repeatedly made it clear in your posts that you feel the genre is a lie and a marketing scheme. Furthermore, in The Guardians article on the subject, it was not saying that Tri-Angle had "kept track" of anything. That statement was made in regard to Robin Carolans blog, XXJFG, which has, in fact, done exactly that. Your claim that music critics "report gossip/lies" is absurd-music critics criticize and describe music. If wikipedia did not consider the music press to be a reputable source for citations regarding music, wikipedia would have little, if any available sources regarding music, and this would leave wikipedia a considerably weaker and poorer source of information.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then you were guilty of the same thing, Blackmagnetictape, in regards reverting back false information. I can sit on here all day and play games on personal attacks if you guys like, but off wikipedia. Also, I'm not saying all music press is not reputable. I am stating that it HAS happened before, in regards to reporting false information. This is why all the more sources should be double checked, regardless of whether it is a known media entity. Nothing more Diskotech (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, not yet another non-notable music genre invented purely to generate interest for otherwise unknown artists ([33]). Lacks creditability. Too manyinconsistencies and no notable artist seem to be pushing it. Lies are not facts, agreed.Dhloe (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Diskotech, you can't vote from multiple accounts. It is against Wikipedia's policy. --GreenZeb (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not my account, quit making false accusations. Any administrators can feel free to check it, please and verify. At this point you're on the verge of being labeled childish and uniformed, GreenZeb. It also discredits your opinion on anything in regards to this article, as you're clearly spreading false information at this point. I'm not sure what you're interests are in trying to create controversy, to be honest, but it seems to be personal ones at this point. Going by your standards at this point/rules, we may as well in fact, accuse you of being that IP from Latvia posting that promotional material on the wiki entry after all. This is ridiculous, you guys are turning this into a personal attack and debate on me, rather than discussion the article/issue. This goes against wiki standards, i may add, last I recall.Diskotech (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Dhloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources, even if it may be something of an neologism. I don't see anything here promotional in nature. (|nn bands/etc that could be added can be removed and the editor warned/blocked as needed.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, yeah, I've tried deleting most of the promotion, thus far. Also, it either is neologism or it's not. You cannot have it both ways. Which is it? It's like saying yes and no, at once. That solves/contributes nothing and we are back at ground 0, from that point of view. Did you actually bother to read the sources, by the way? The Guardian pitched it. Pitchforked pitched it. Simply because they are known names, does not justify it's reliability of the source [34]. Every source should be double checked and not assumed. That's irresponsibility at it's finest. They were reporting on future news. Read it and you'll see. Again, it's also based on assumption and lies that have been confirmed [35]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskotech (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe WP:NEO explicitly bans neologisms, just says to avoid them (because of the promotional problems.) I would wait a bit on this AfD as there seems to be some sort of conflict going on here between the nom (Diskotech) and another editor. Please assume good faith. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With good reason and makes sense, as this has been a promotional problem, when you look at early versions of this article/entry. Alright then. Diskotech (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think promotional problems are really a reason to delete here. You yourself have said you fixed the article, and looking forward we can delete/revert spam as needed. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noted. However, what about the false information being reported in regards to claiming Salem labeled this supposed genre? That's been the primary souce/push for the "genre". In fact, the only reason why this is even in question. Salem have denied any such claims, repeatedly. Thus proving to be false information being reported. What do you believe should be done about that? Diskotech (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established, although the article could possibly be renamed to one of the genre synonyms (most likely witch house). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Isoardi

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There do appear to be enough sources available to address concers with sourcing,[36][37] and we might consider that notability to Italy should be good enough for en.Wikipedia. It would be good to get input from Italian Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many sources, I was able add some in no time, there are many more. Clearly popular in Italy. Also quite attractive, if I may add. :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Milowent.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid Nomination: I question whether the nominator has made a good-faith attempt to confirm that sources don't exist, as required by point 9 in WP:BEFORE. Hallucegenia (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent's use of WP:AFTER and understanding of WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin M. Bradley

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Typical case where single purpose acct (here, having name of the subject) creates article, and no one substantively changes article since creation in August 2006. Despite a somewhat common name combination views of the page are very small [ http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Edwin_M._Bradley]. Check for sources does not reveal support for notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can verify he wrote the books, but I cannot find significant reviews or critical reception that would indicate he is a notable author. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Can find 2 books he is credited for writing but cant any info for WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Osborne

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was tagged as unsourced in July 2008, the month of UBLPs that Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue is currently working on (COME HELP US!). This is a common article type we see--a local artist with very little coverage out there and no critical coverage, and article created by a single purpose account that never returned. I can't find sourcing to demonstrate notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's widely acknowledged and appreciated throughout the art would, you'd think we could find at least one article on the web saying something to that effect. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My dear friend Google says this person doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Netalarm^talk 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find multiple places where his paintings were being sold, but not a single WP:RS that could be used to create a WP:BIO. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neville-Smith -Drdisque (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:CREATIVE test. I've deleted the unsourced BLP claims (date and place of birth, first wife, second wife). - Pointillist (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rauber

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gerber

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

Long-term undersourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KFAI: Because the Boogiemonster is just too amusing to erase all traces of.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already added his name a ref to him at KFAI.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Milowent even though the show sounds fascinating since the host doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. - Dravecky (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fox Smith

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of little notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May be notable, but can just redirect to band if no one can find sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serafin (band). Even the claim to the band's notablity is dubious, but I can see absolutely no reason why the lead singer is individually notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Macha Nightmare

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

Long-term undersourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While part one of your deletion reason is correct, part two isn't, as she is clearly notable. She is interviewed by newspapers (San Francisco Chronicle[38] and a number of behind-the-paywall articles), is given as a reference repeatedly in Introduction to pagan studies (further reading of chapter 4 has three books, one cowritten by her) and has an entry in The Gale encyclopedia of the unusual and unexplained. This is just going to a few of the many sources available, people interested in the subject could probably find a lot more still in the 1260 Google Books results... Fram (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After a quick look, I agree with Fram.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this author is notable, and getting more notable all the time. The article could probably use some updating, but IMO deserves to be improved rather than deleted. Rosencomet (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Woskanian

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing available through a Google search to suggest any notability. No higher degrees or appointments to satisfy WP:NOTE. Would seem to be the only claim to be different from thousands of other social workers would be Iranian- born but see nothing to verify that either.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Very little if anything at all outside social networking and self-supplied info sites. Even less about the Key League - which was registered as a business name in 2008. That's about the only thing I could find on it. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by subject or someone related to them, not uncommon in the UBLP backlog, never substantively edited by anyone else. He attended a Lakers game while he was in high school in 1992 :-) (news source appears to match up to him), but no claim to notability in article and no sourcing to support.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Fernald

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

Unsourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ H-index of 25 does not seem terribly high for a high-citation-rate field like psych (my measure by the very unscientific method of randomly checking the h-indices of 3 or 4 other associate professors at randomly chosen research institutions), so not passing WP:PROF criterion 1, and what else is there? Ray^Talk 00:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's attracted a lot of major-media attention for her research, as I've added to the article. I think she passes WP:GNG, and likely also WP:PROF#C7. She also clearly passes WP:PROF#C5 as the holder of a named chair (now added to the article as well; at the time of nomination it just said she was an associate professor). Finally, I don't know what searches the nominator and Ray were trying, but when I do it I see 13 publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar (factoring out the ones that don't seem to be by her) which to me is easily enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per David Eppstein. I was making a first effort to normalize my Gscholar h-index checks with others in the field. Clearly, I must've picked a bad batch. Will try to be more careful in the future. Ray^Talk 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jeebus how many of this mass-nomination drive by nominator turned out this way?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for substantial reasons above. A time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. IoS not asserted. Lots of people write fiction. No indication that the fiction she writes is notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Williams

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article doesn't even attempt to state the case for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Mercado Jr.

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable. That this individual has done the Spanish-language voice-over work for notable actors in Spanish-dubbed verisons of the original notable projects might have been enough, had he any coverage for his work. In lacking reliable sources from which to source a BLP, we have one that fails. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--unanimous, ignoring the sockpuppets and the irrelevant Pokémon test argument. Prolonging the discussion will likely only generate more of the same. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjy Bronk

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

Long-term unsourced BLP except for a Howard Stern fansite. No notability; subject's only claim to notability appears to be that he is a staffer for Howard Stern. Suggest pertinent info be moved to The Howard Stern Show Staff page after deletion Rockypedia (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the nominators suggestion for a merge/redirect to the Stern Staffer section is worth considering, the article does assert him being a comedian as well as being a Stern staffer, though yes, the Sterns conection does seem to be its focus. A check finds coverage in news and books 2001 through 2010,[39][40] as a comedian, as well as being involved with Stern. Is there enough per WP:GNG for an independent article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in those two links that says he's anything but a writer on the Stern show. The results that say he's a comedian are pretty much sentences that were copy-pasted from this very wikipedia article. Circular references?Rockypedia (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I don't think there is actually anything worth merging. He already has a decent little write at the staff article here Only real thing of any note worth reporting is to be a Howard Stern staff member. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree, mostly - there might be a sentence or two that merits inclusion in the staff article, although maybe not; I'm not that experienced in deleting articles (or anything) and would certainly defer to Off2riorob here, he knows more than I do. Especially since 99% of the info on the web about him seems to be copied directly from this article that we're discussing.Rockypedia (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has become the place for any random company to have an entry created for. If random companies that have no relevance what-so-ever can have their own articles Benjy can have his.Woods01 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but obviously one has no bearing on the other. If you cared to offer a valid, articulate argument as to how Benjy Bronk meets the criteria established by WP:BIO and WP:BLP, of course we would all listen to it.Rockypedia (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject seems to more than meet the notability and inclusion comments laid out in Wikipedia policy. Seems to be several mainstream and secondary sources independent about subject that are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveat5 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - this last keep comment it the accounts only edit. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography without substantial sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1964 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only three edits. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Most of this article seems to be paragraphs copied from a Howard Stern fan site. No other secondary sources. Non-notable biography of someone attached to a celebrity through where he works.ArchieOof (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources include NY Times and NY Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeahMcal (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be yet another sock puppet attempting to keep this page alive. Consider: This user signed up for a wikipedia account just today. Has only edited the Bronk page and this discussion page, after a bunch of useless edits (in the space of 17 minutes) to the Leah page. Added a citation to a NY Times article that doesn't mention Benjy Bronk. Cited a Penn State alumni site that simply lists Bronk as a graduate. There is also significant evidence that this registered name and all the other sock puppets may be Bronk himself, trying to appear as if he is several different people. See the discussion here.

So now, to recap: input on this page voting 'Keep' is from

Fiveat5 (talk • contribs) (one edit on all of WIkipedia, the one on this page)

Woods01 (talk • contribs), who is a legitimate editor, but offered a rather illogical rationale for his/her "Keep" vote

LeahMcal (talk• contribs) (account created less than an hour before the edit to this page)

Also, there is no NY Post reference on the Bronk page, despite this latest puppet's claims. Rockypedia (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- An IP posted here (since removed) that there was some request from the subject to come here and save his article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Kurshan

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. Also, it reads like an advertisement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's attracted some news attention but not in significant enough publications and not in sufficiently nontrivial detail about her to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pandya

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not completely unknown. The Telegraph, Boca Raton News, and Evening Times all mention one of his cookbooks, or republishes recipes from them. But I can find no significant coverage about the chef or his books. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - has written a number of books. But cannot find coverage or reviews for them or the subject as a chef--Sodabottle (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Lech

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little notability. Doesn't seem to meet our guideline for politicians, either. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... borderline. Here's a source [41] (Gazeta Wyborcza is the largest circulation daily in Poland). Apparently he's the first Pole (as in Polish citizenship) to run for the EU Parliament on a ticket in a foreign country (Belgium). So that's sort of notable. He was apparently somehow associated with the beginnings of the Green Party in Poland, but to what extent is not clear. That could also be notable. If that's not enough I'll dig around some more. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no longer unsourced, seems to have done a couple of things that are quite significant (chairmanship of YEG and first Polish candidate in another country) and been reported by a major newspaper. I don't see any benefit in deleting this.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kotniski.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me, really. The encyclopedia gains nothing from deleting this. ----Divebomb is not British 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ellis

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

BLP with no secondary sources independent of the subject. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar h-index of 33, which may be sufficient under criterion 1 of WP:PROF (psych is a very high citation rate field), in addition, he is general editor of Language Learning, satisfying WP:PROF criterion 8. Ray^Talk 23:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of above evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm not quite sure what it means that Language Learning has separate positions for "general editor" and "journal editor", but I get the impression from their author guidelines that the general editor is the one that sets the editorial policy, and as such I'm convinced that he passes WP:PROF#C8. The citations (12 papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar) are also enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enzok (Counter-Strike Source Player)

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

NN person, fails WP:GNG, only trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 05:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious WP:CSD#A7 candidate. --Jayron32 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. WP:GNG, WP:OR, etc... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İnci Sözlük

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

I'm not sure if the topic of the artitle is really the website or the dictionary (it was originally the English name, then got moved to Turkish and seems to be talking more about the site than the medical reference). But either way, appears to fail notability standards (including having long-unaddressed cleanup tags). The only thing I see is that it was the blog on which someone posted a comment first noting a possibly-notable situation involving some other notable website. Seems like the site itself is a few steps removed from actual notability in its own right. The cited ref only mentions the site itself in passing, so it's not the sort of specific in-depth reporting that WP:WEB wants. I don't know Turkish so I can't comment on the site's content or easily search for native sources about it. Note: I had to semiprotect the article to quash a long-term vandalism problem--other admins feel free to unprotect if you think anons will be able to bring the article into a viable state, and also beware if the problem spreads to this AFD. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Correction: prot was on a related article not this one, however please still be aware of anon/SPA problems as they seem to plague here also. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's a forum like Ekşi Sözlük. İnci Sözlük is very popular in Turkey, if there's a page for Ekşi Sözlük, we can also have a page for İnci Sözlük. Dizikaygisiz (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP:RS that clearly states that it is very popular? DMacks (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hiratzka

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

Article about a musician which does not meet the minimum standards of inclusion as explained in detail at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Turns up zero hits at Google News, and in a straight google search, everything on the first 4 pages is either self-published or a Wikipedia mirror. Jayron32 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also the references included aren't to any reliable sources that describe him in any detail. Them From Space 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally

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

First of all it is unreferenced. Secondly, do we really need this on Wikipedia? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, wiki doesn't need this sort of unreferenced trivia! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too expansive a list to have reasonable parameters to limit it. There are likely many New Zealand musical acts which have charted someone outside of New Zealand, especially considering how you define "charted". --Jayron32 05:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently created, but it's the classic old Wikipedia uninformative list with no discriminating information -- where in New Zealand are they from? What's their largest selling album, chart, etc. This one was created in 2010, so no excuse for the lack of info or sourcing. Looks like it was adapted from Category:Discographies of New Zealand artists. I'm a big believer in WP:CLN, but if a list ignores both WP:V and WP:IINFO, let it go. Mandsford 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the creator has !voted "delete" and the other edits are not substantial, I'm going to punch this one CSD G7. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Davidson (guitarist)

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

I can't find anything that verified any of the information and establishes the subject's notability. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created this stub as I said in my edit note at the time: "Creating stub out of material erroneously added to Scott Davidson (musician) who is a different person", and, I should add, the original article Scott Davidson, who is a lacrosse player. The guitarist article material was added by Voodoo honey in their sole contribution to Wikipedi at 20 June 2009. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--I actually didn't look that far back in the history and didn't even see you had created it. I appreciate the update. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy (event)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is more appropriate for Wiktionary than en.wiki. Bitmapped (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not a dictionary" does not seem to apply here. The article is about tragic events, not about the word. Maybe "Public tragedy" might be a better title, since it was used by at least one of the sources and might better describe the scope of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is indeed an appropriate article. It defines and explains what a tragedy is, instead of explaining the word "tragedy". It also has sources. JIP | Talk 06:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally think someone was inclined to nominate it because it was once nominated before on the basis of being a dicdef. That was years ago. Now, it is a long, well-sourced article with plenty of references, so the whole point of the nom is moot. There are even some entire books on the subject, by far surpassing the General Notability Guideline. I personally think this discussion will turn out to be a unanimous keep and perhaps closed early via SNOW. I also do not think "public tragedy" is a better title because it also describes personal tragedies, which are not public. Shaliya waya (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, we are not a dictionary. But this does not apply here. ----Divebomb is not British 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Merrill

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

I came across this article when I punched the "reference this BLP" button [42]. I found a little information at CD Baby [43], but no reliable third-party sources that would help to support WP:N notability, neither in Google News archives [44], nor in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Maybe another editor may have more success at finding sources than I did. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reliable secondary sources ... etc, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BAND. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yay for all editors clicking the button and looking for sources for unreferenced BLPs. Some indeed merit deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cubender

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

This article about a software product does not indicate why the subject is important or significant, a much lower standard than the required notability. Because Speedy deletion criterion A7 does not apply to software, and because the page has already had a WP:PROD which was opposed, I am taking it here. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having an HTML version of a Flash website solves two classic dilemmas: compatibility and search engine visibility. Not only are Cubender websites compatible across multiple devices and browsers, they are no less optimized for search engines than HTML-only websites.... Cubender was founded in 2008 and released their official Beta in 2010. Advertisement for a product without historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cralar (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Thomas Pollard

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

Unremarkable candidate. My rule of thumb is for a candidate to be notable, there must be at least one scandal in the news. Can find nothing except the fact that he got 0.3% of the vote. W Nowicki (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...if there's a scandal-free candiate, they're automatically non-notable? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only half sarcastic: yes. The way the US elections work, if a candidate is considered a serious threat, attack ads appear (now funded by secret corporate groups) acusing them of something horrible. So no attacks implies the candidate was not really taken seriously. Of course every rule has exceptions, and perhaps historic elections (and in other countries) might be different. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaii gubernatorial election, 2010 per WP:POLITICIAN. Unremarkable failed candidate. Ray^Talk 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect per Ray. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds good to me too. He is only notable, so far, for the one event of running for office so give the details there. No need to repeat the same information in 2 articles. (Although I know that is often done here.) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after deletion, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Hekerui (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No convincing reasons for deletion have been advanced. Colonel Warden has shown that this topic is the subject of entire monographs. The arguments that accuse the editors of the article of pushing a certain POV are invalid, as articles are not deleted on the basis of who edits them. If there are any deficiencies with the content of an article about a notable topic - and I agree that this article has substantial deficiencies - then that is grounds for improving it by editing, not for deletion. Sandstein 08:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration and crime

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Immigrant criminality

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

this article simply lists 4 countries and selective reporting of immigrants being responsible for higher rates of crime. and use of "extreme examples" like this just confirm to me the WP:UNDUE nature. it is a cover for migrant bashing. why list 4 countries only? do we have similar articles for Local residents and crime or German citizens and crime? LibStar (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to need some cleanup and expansion, but accusations of criminal behavior are a major flashpoint in connection with the politics of immigration. The external link at the bottom of the page has an interesting report on the same. In short, notable topic, not going away. Ray^Talk 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:Battle and WP:POV. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a stand-alone subject that merits treatment as a seperate issue. Anything in this article would sit much better in individual country articles, or in immigration or crime-related articles. This is because "Immigration and crime" does not mean anything different than "Immigration and crime" (unlike say Rhythm and blues or Search and rescue. The article title creates the presumption of an intrinisic relationship that simply doesn't exist, and thus invites conflict. It's like having an article entitled Men and rape, Muslims and stoning or Koreans and cat eating. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exactly the last examples (excluding the Koreans perhaps) are good illustrations of why it is seen as an issue: almost all rape is committed by men, almost all the stoning by Muslims. And in many European countries, irrespective of what political correctness tells us, political reality clearly reflects that the relationship between immigration and crime is a widely noticed subject that fuels political discourse. Statistics are clear, immigrants tend to commit distinctly more crimes than "natives" of the same income class. Apparently, for the Swiss public, for better or for worse, the problem was concrete enough to change the constitution for it. It is in the power of the editors not to make this article a tool for "migrant bashing", by presenting the facts, as far as they are available. Trigaranus (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do you have sources to back your claim that "Statistics are clear, immigrants tend to commit distinctly more crimes than "natives" of the same income class. "? In many countries this is not true. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the link between immigrants and crime, the facts can be presented in existing articles. Almost all rape is commited by men, and you can find this out in the Rape article. Why do you think we don't we have a Men and rape article?

um, there are plenty of sources looking into immigration and crime. The reason they do this is that statistics in many, many countries that are targets of immigration, the statistics show an appalling crime rate for immigrant communitites. This is extremely easy to substantiate, and there is no reason to have this discussion on AFD. If you are interested in the topic, you can just help collecting these references on the article talkpage.

Why is there no "men and rape" article? Mostly because "men and rape" would be a PC obfuscation of that is intended, namely male rapists. Also because since 99% of rapists are male anyway, a separate "men and rape" article would just be a WP:CFORK of rape. Unlike this, considerably less than 99% of crimes in Western Europe are commited by immigrants, so that immigrant criminality is a valid sub-topic and not a cfork of "criminality". --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - this is a huge political issue in Europe. We may as well mass-delete all of Category:Creation science because from an European point of view it is a silly non-issue. Yes, "Immigration and crime" is a bad title. The article was moved away from the proper title, which was immigrant criminality, the proper term for the topic. The move was motivated by misguided political correctness. Compare moving Creation Science to Creation Pseudoscience because, doh, it is not science. "Creation Science" is still the proper term for the political issue. If you want to help, please place a move request to move the article back to its proper title. And please don't AFD topics you know nothing about just out of a whim of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment, if the submitter had bothered to click on the "find sources" links that they themselves created, they would have noticed that google books immediately comes up with at least six monographs that have "immigration and crime" in their title. Seriously, the reviewing admin should just close this as an invalid WP:POINT submission, I do not think that anyone who actually bothers to review the topic will find that any case for deletion can be made. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You don't have to be sharp-sighted to notice what political views most contributors of this article hold and what their purpose is to show by this article: to enforce opinions and blame immigrants for everything. WP isn't a propaganda platform for right-wingers. Userpd (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pontificalibus's excellent comments. Immigration does not necessarily lead to crime; it does so in some countries under some circumstances and that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. (And I note that not all nations even have crime sections, not to mention immigrant crime.) What might be NPOV would be something like "List of nations with significant immigrant crime problem" with link to any existing sections in a country's article, and maybe two sentence summary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful about ad-hominem and other fallacies - In this discussion, there are Bulverisms in the form of "do you have sources?", assuming there aren't any, when much of the information is already sourced in the article itself. Several deletion comments in this discussion claiming the article is a platform for "immigrant bashing" and for "right-wingers", with reference to "what political views most contributors of this article hold", are basically ad-hominem. I for one am certainly on the left of the spectrum (and I strongly doubt you will find dab much further to the right), and I voted against the latest outburst of idiocy from the Swiss People's Party -- but that is not an issue here.
It cannot be that a few contributors shouting "Heresy!" or rather "right-wing immigrant haters" manage to declare a central political issue in many European countries a non-entity. Propositions to split the issue into its two underlying concepts are downright absurd. In the same vein it could never be justified that "Pro-Life" has its own article though the vast majority of blastula-loving people who call themselves so are supporters of capital punishment.
If it is a pivotal political issue, it is also an article. (And I mean pivotal, due to the weight it holds in public perception, and therefore in populist political discourse and party strategies.) If you are not happy with the silly "A and B" lemma, please move it back to its original title Immigrant criminality. Trigaranus (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my comment on do you have sources refers to this being a well established international phenomenon? Is it true that migrants are more responsible for crime in say all Western countries? Simply listing 4 countries and dab's insistence of using an "extreme single example" demonstrates a NPOV and WP:UNDUE presentation

. Dab asks for speedy keep, that cannot apply if many are !voting delete here. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very controversial topic, and it can quicly be exploited by right-wing populists. Wikipedia is not made for spreading propanganda.WP:SOAPS. It seems as it has been used to spread misleading information about immigration. It would be better to integrate potential material into the the articles about crime in the given countries.Shalalal (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this propaganda? Seriously, gentlemen, neither dab nor I, who seem to be the only ones supporting a keep here, have an agenda to spread propaganda, or "misleading information about immigration". Can I ask everybody here to read "Immigration, Crime and Justice" by William Frank McDonald and then make up your mind? Could you please not give yourselves to the illusion that it is not a well established international phenomenon? And what kind of a non-argument is this? Nobody said that immigrants are more responsible for crime in all Western countries, don't be bloody absurd. But does none of you find it notable e.g. that youths from the Balkans who have grown up as immigrants in Switzerland ("Switzerland as a significant case study", to quote the title for the first chapter in one of the essays from McDonald) commit much more violent crime than those who have grown up in the Balkans themselves? And how on earth could this be construed as racist when it's clear that it is not immigrants' "race" or "culture" that makes them more prone to violence but their socialisation as immigrants? Trigaranus (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has great notability, being the subject of entire books such as Immigration and crime and Immigration, Crime and Justice. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would be disruptive to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by administrator LadyofShalott (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#A3 (non-admin closure) Ray^Talk 05:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in science

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

This article is empty save for a template a unreferenced lead and a empty sub-heading. Per WP:CRYSTAL Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...oh, good grief. Speedy delete A3 - No Content. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A3 Tagged as such. Ray^Talk 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomson (Charterhouse)

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

I can't see why the subject of this article is notable. He doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. He's a surgeon, hence the title FRCS which is a professional qualification, and now he looks after a Charterhouse. Googling him returns some very old, hardly references medical papers.

Besides that, the article is in such bad shape it would need a total rewrite. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no assertion of notability mentioned in the article. This might have been better suited for a proposed deletion. --§Pumpmeup 13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral for now, as I do not have the time to look for sources. However, he is not just Master of a Charterhouse, but the Master of a very important building in the City of London. He was also a pretty senior doctor and academic, so I would not be surprised if he does meet WP:ACADEMIC. The article needs work in several respects, but deletion is not obvious to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have now had time to look for more sources. I think it is clear that he is notable. The number of references to him in the St Marks Hospital Annual Report 2006 attests to his significance in the hospital. A clinical director is, I think, a senior appointment. Lambeth Degrees are not common. His role at Charterhouse is significant and interesting. I am sure more can be found by someone who knows their way around the records of the medical profession. I see no reason to delete and several to keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Could you supply these reference, please? What about putting them into the article itself? I couldn't find anything myself. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What references to you mean? The Annual Report is referenced. Just search it for Thomson. The role of the Master is pretty clear from the whole set of web pages about Charterhouse. I do not have a direct reference that says the Master of Charterhouse is notable. It just all adds up. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that report says (and part of that report was written by the subject; so doesn't really count as third-party) is that he was a clinical director 15 years ago. He's now retired. Do we list every manager of every hospital unit? I can't find anything about his work that makes him notable. Okay, he was the boss... and? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part was written by him apart from the obituary of someone? This is the annual report of a major UK hospital that is a teaching hospital of the University of London. The fact that he wrote part of it shows how senior he was. But is not just being a manager of a hospital unit. He was a Senior Surgeon. Charterhouse is important so its leader, the Master, is important. He is patron of a society alongside people who are clearly notable. The society does not just chose anyone. The Church Times, the major paper of the Church of England, has an article on him. As I said, Lambeth degrees are honorary degrees and relatively rare. It all adds up to notability, but as I said above I hope someone who understands the medical profession can add more sources about his medical positions. He is a person who has done a variety of things that have been noticed. I will leave it for the closing admin now. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that I don't reply? Okay, I won't. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may work with, or for, famous people, but Notability is not inherited. "The society does not just [choose] anyone" is not a reliable source. The awarding of a Lambeth degree may make him notable, but looking through Category:Holders of a Lambeth degree, I see only two of 57 who don't appear to be notable in some other fashion, adn they should probably be scrutinised to see if they, too, should be AfD'd, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument about Lambeth degrees seems to me to be the wrong way round, If 55 out of 57 are notable in some other fashion, is it not that those other "fashions" are the reason why the degree was awarded? Lambeth degrees are awarded to people that the Church of England deems to be notable. So it seems like the small number that do not seem to be notable are just people where we have not found sources. Of course we need sources, but I would have thought that anyone who is awarded an honorary degree, including Lambeth degrees, would be notable enough for an article. We have sources. He was a senior medic, was awarded an honorary degree and is now Master of an important institution. I really do not see where the problem lies. Are there not readers who would want to find out about this man? --Bduke (Discussion) 08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeth degrees are not awarded to people that the Church of England deems to be notable. According to this section of the Lambeth degree article, people have to sit theology exams to get these degrees. They're not honorary degrees that recognise fame or good work; they're just academic qualifications. (From the article: "Because they are substantive and not honorary degrees...") — Fly by Night (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that they are wider than I thought, but I do not think you read that article close enough. The section you refer to does indeed talk about examinations, but those degrees do not include the Doctor of Medicine that he was awarded. The examinations are for the Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology and the Master of Arts. The Doctorates are dealt with in the section above, where it says "They are, in a sense, awarded in recognition of prior learning or experience but also serve as a form of church honours system". So he was given an honour by the Church and because his experience was in Medicine he was awarded the Doctor of Medicine. See "An eminent and much-published scholar may be considered suitable for a doctorate,..". This link describes them as honorary degrees. So they are not like Honorary degrees from a UK university where a politician may be given a degree in Law with no knowledge of law, but the doctorates are clearly "a form of church honours system" and he is "eminent and much-published". --Bduke (Discussion) 21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same link says you can nominate colleagues by sending in their CVs! — Fly by Night (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? As an academic I have always been able to nominate people for honorary degrees by the university where I worked. It does not mean they will agree with me. There is a process and I am sure Lambeth also has a process. The fact remains that James Thomson's MD from Lambeth is an honorary degree recognising his eminence. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're on your own. Three of us think it should go. You're the lone voice. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Moore

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

does not meet notability guidelines for tennis players (has never competed in a main draw WTA Tour event) Mayumashu (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy pending establishment of notability as a pro. PicodeGato (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tennis notability guidelines grant notability if you win an ITF tournament in the $25,000 to $100,000 category. She won a doubles tournament in the $25,000 category (verified here). Close, but she's made it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just barely passes WP:TENNIS/N #6, but passes it nonetheless. Ravendrop (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hutchinson (author)

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

Unsourced BLP (original 'References' section turned out to be spurious). Created and abandoned by a new editor back in January 2009, and reduced to stub shortly thereafter. Topic is a minor writer on the subject of the Catholic Church. Lengthy review of one of his books in the National Catholic Reporter, but it contains little biographical information. Google News and Google Books do not appear to yield any substantive hits on this Robert Hutchinson (but given the number of other Robert Hutchinsons, they may be hidden in the noise). No indication that he meets WP:CREATIVE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a citation to a NYT review has been added to the article -- but it's behind a paywall, so it's unclear what it says & what depth it contains. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: a whole heap of material has just been added to the article: 4 of the current 8 citations are to Hutchinson himself. Two are to unreliable sources (a travel agent and a Czech bookstore -- though I suppose the latter is barely adequate for the bare existence of a Czech translation). This leaves two reviews (though I have no idea if Kirkus Reviews are RS or not). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looks like there have been a number of sources added, but they primarily deal with his works, rather than his life. On the other hand, Hrafn is to be commended for taking a bunch of bare refs dumped into the article during the AfD and formatting them appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems somewhat notable, and there are sources.. but not much. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two book, both with reviews. Meets WP:AUTHOR. (fwiw, the appropriate sources for notability of an author are expected to be about his work, not his life: writing books is what makes an author notable.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or "weak keep" if you prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth Robinson

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

Biography of a virtual artist who does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. As mentioned on the talk page, a few sources (i.e., from Google Scholar) that contain brief mentions about the work, but likely not enough substantive information to meet WP:GNG. Much of the current sourcing is YouTube and primary sources, and significant amounts of the content (i.e., the "Works" section) appear to exaggerate trivial information. All of that aside, the article asserts notability based on the fact that the artist creates art on Second Life, but there is nothing substantive to indicate if/why this work is notable. Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: The article is being created by students doing a project. After initially thinking this was a bad thing I have realised that it is not and have been trying to encourage them (via the talk page) to edit it in a more encyclopaedic way. The article has gone off in completely the wrong direction, and I did ponder putting it up for AfD myself, but the really weird thing is that she does get a reasonable number of hits in Google Scholar and Google Books (most of them under her pseudonym, AngryBeth Shortbread, so I have added a {{Find sources}} for that). There are sources they could use to demonstrate at least some notability. Notability is still borderline but not as bad as you would think from reading the article. Verifiability is also a big issue. If kept, the article should be cut down to a few relevant paragraphs and built up again from the RS sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Daniel - our notability policies do struggle in the virtual world. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice to reposting an reliably sourced article. Try as I might, I cannot find any coverage on GNews, GBooks or GScholar which is anything more than incidental. If it stays, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten - wikipedia articles are not supposed to be rehashes of the subjects' own CVs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am disturbed to see that none of the people working on this article has come here to even try to defend it despite ample opportunity. Perhaps the project is over and the students have lost interest. This is a pity, as engaging in discussion about appropriate sourcing and verifiability could have been a more valuable learning experience for them than writing the article itself.
Anyway, it now seems that nobody loves this article. I am almost tempted to switch to a delete vote, just to put it out of its misery, but notability should be the deciding factor here so I will stick with my very weak keep. Unless anybody has any better ideas, I still propose to turn it into a stub with just a couple of verifiable paragraphs if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google scholar hits are worth considering. One in particular, [45] says "the ubiquitous Metalab Whiteboard by AngryBeth Shortbread used everywhere in Second Life", which is probably enough to indicate notability. The others, such as [46] seem to suypport that she is a well-known artist there. DanielRigel and I have been making suggestions, unfortunately, the response has not been particularly constructive. I suspect the project ahas been submitted and the student(s) see no need to deal with it further, which is a shame. Will need very drastic editing, but I think is keepable. Based on the talk page, there may be additional similar bios which areworth hunting down and checking. It may be too late now, but I should have worked more actively to get someone from WM UK to try to get in touch with them. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep no prejudice to renom in 6 months.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Innovations

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

The subject of the article is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 03:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising for non-notable terminal software. (Brings back memories, doesn't it?) Starting from humble origins with a team of two, Francis Carden and Derek Cahusac de Caux, Pixel achieved a sales turnover of $200,000 in its first year.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sammy Davis, Jr.. Notability is not inherited; however, redirects are cheap, and therefore one to Davis' article after deletion is not inappropriate Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Silber Jr.

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

Appears to claim notability via friendship with Sammy Davis Jr. Sources are weak, primarily self-citing from resume, book, and Youtube interviews, with links to website selling the book. Looks like WP:COI from a single purpose account, with a promotional tone. JNW (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can rest assured that we are NOT Arthur Silber, Jr. Nor are we in any way affiliated with any public relations group, itself affiliated with anyone, let alone Mr. Silber.

You can also rest assured that I am not promoting or selling anything attached to Mr. Silber. His book, Sammy Davis Jr.: Me and My Shadow, is readily available through a number of resellers online and physically, and, as a publication of four years of age, needs no promotion.

I am a college professor from Alabama, as well as a graphic artist and photographer. I am 26 years of age, significantly younger than Mr. Silber's 78 years. I am obviously not Mr. Silber, and as such, I am not "self citing."

Video interviews with Arthur Silber, Jr. are available in a number of sources. However, most of them are low-quality uploads, and most of them have obnoxious advertisements that play for thirty seconds before the video plays. Mr. Silber's website contains an archive of interviews that he has given over the years about his career, and most especially his time with Sammy Davis, Jr. As well as being an easy-to-navigate omnibus of information about Silber, they are generally of better quality than what you would find on a site like youtube.

The claim that Arthur Silber, Jr. is not notable is ludicrous, and this had already been discussed when I began writing this article. I generated sources then, these same sources, which I then expanded upon. Other editors have helped format parts of this site, and this is the first time in close to a month that someone has contested this. Yes, the sources have not been cited until tonight, but as the sole writer of this article in this broad community I find it hard to single-handedly edit this page, especially as of late. I commit myself to my writing, but I do not obsess over it. I simply work as time and my students and clients allow.

Silber's book, Me and My Shadow, won and Irwin Award in 2006 for being the Best Entertainment Book of the Year. You may view their website for any additional proof of this.

To say that Silber it not notable is ridiculous. Read his book or look at his interviews, most especially his book. Not only are there stories in there about Sammy and his life, but there are also photographs that have not been seen elsewhere, including photos of Davis and Silber together, including the business license they signed to form SamArt Enterprises in 1958. For most of Sammy Davis, Jr.'s life, Arthur was there, right beside him, living and contributing to it all. Not only is there written evidence of this, there is visual evidence of this.

Is an image a source? I think so. More to the point, some of these images are going to be used in this article. I have permission to use them and I have them ready to go! I simply have not added them to the article yet. With the recent end-of-semester paperwork and evaluations, as well as the seasonal rush of work, I have simply lost track of time, and I apologize for that. Charge it to my head, and not my heart.

As well as this, Mr. Silber has performed several notable video interviews. NBC Nevada's newsmakers segment, with not only Silber but another friend of Davis, Angela's Closet, a successful cable talk show, amongst others.

A forty-five minute interview with Brad Butler was conducted with Silber discussing the legacy and life of the entertainer. Of this interview, Brad Butler had this to say:

In his biography of one of the greatest entertainers in history, Sammy Davis Jr.- Me and My Shadow, Arthur Silber Jr. lays out his personal journey as Sammy's closest confidant, advisor and business partner from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s. Peppered with scores of pictures never seen and stories never told, Silber also corrects details of major events in Sammy's life which have become legend through re-telling or being related in recent books.
Beyond setting the record straight and chronicling the life of an American icon, Silber is also on a mission to bring to light the very real strides Sammy made in breaking down numerous color barriers well before and during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Literally growing up on the boards of the vaudeville circuit during the 1930s and 1940s, Sammy saw first hand racial discrimination decades prior to the gains made in the tumultuous 1960s.
Silber, whose father managed the Will Maston Trio (Sammy's uncle), and Davis grew close in the mid-1940s and became practically inseparable for 25 years. When Sammy started to establish himself as a major star in the mid-1950s, he was allowed to play hotels in Vegas but not allowed to stay in them, eat in the restaurants or gamble in the casinos. Sammy broke that barrier down. This is only one example of the racial divides he confronted and just one example of how this diminutive entertainer changed life in America, for one of his deepest desires was just to be treated equally.
With the passing of Civil Rights pioneer Rosa Parks, focus has been on her role in bringing forth better treatment of blacks in the United States. While acknowledging Parks' role, and many others, Silber feels that Sammy Davis Jr. deserves a proud place in the pantheon of those who fought this fight in the trenches, confronting it in his travels around the country and often swallowing his pride, even in enduring death threats, so that those to follow would have it better than previous generations.
Sammy Davis Jr. was not just a great entertainer, he was a man sensitive to his surroundings, determined to change them and, most importantly, a proud man who loved his family, friends and country with equal fervor. With Thanksgiving just around the corner, we need to give thanks for brave men like Sammy Davis Jr.

Arthur Silber, Jr. is someone who lived a large segment of history. Did he make headlines? No. But he was there with someone who did, not just as a fan or a spectator, but as someone integral to the life of one of the most, if not the most, influential entertainers of the 20th century. We're not talking about some janitor's apprentice here, we're talking about someone vital. And Silber deserves to be remembered for that, he deserves the credit for that.

I could use time and a little help. Wikipedia,ironically, is not the friendliest of communities, or necessarily the most open. I'm new to this formality and would appreciate any and all help that I could get. I want this to succeed, I want this to show the quality that I can create, I want to honor someone who has an incredible adventure and story. Did he climb the Devil's Thumb or land on Mars or split the atom? No. But what he did do was make a difference, be it twisting Davis' arm when he tried to kill himself before his wedding or witnessing his conversion to Judaism. He made a difference. A measurable difference. In the life of someone. And don't we all have those? Those people that we would do anything to tell their story, to let the world know what they've done? I believe beyond any doubt that Arthur Silber, Jr. is that person to Sammy Davis, Jr.

And that's not some PR jargon, thank you very much. That's what I know from reading his story. And that's the only reason I am here right now. -Robert Brown- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneagle.44 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your advocacy is appreciated--yours is a single purpose account, WP:SPA--but the concerns remain. The characterization of Wikipedia as 'soulless' if it denies the article's inclusion suggests a willful misunderstanding of the encyclopedia's purpose, and at the least an issue with WP:NEUTRAL. Perhaps the interviews and the book award (presented by the Book Publicists of Southern California, probably not a strong reference [47]) will be deemed by other contributors as sufficient; I'm not certain, which is why I've nominated the article for deletion. 'Self-citing' refers to many of the current references deriving from the subject's book, resume and website, none of which may be considered objective sources, per WP:RELIABLE. One has no reason to doubt the subject's friendship or importance to Sammy Davis Jr. What is questioned is his notability, supported by reliable sources--Wikipedia doesn't require atom splitting or Mars visits. Lacking that, the guideline that appears relevant is [48], which points to WP:ITSA. JNW (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the article's author is somewhat less than au-fait with the purpose and intent of Wikipedia. Whilst none may deny that Mr Silber was of importance to notable individuals (viz: Sammy Davis Jr), the central point here is that his own notability is not sufficiently demonstrated by reference to reliable, third-party sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to possibly use what material there is concerning Arthur in another way, such as the Sammy Davis, Jr. page? I'm still trying to find sources and prove my case, but what other sort of good can possibly be done, in any case? I think there is a usable resource in the story of Sammy Davis, Jr., at the very least the formation of SamArt Enterprises as well as the origins of Davis wanting to act in movies. It's a unique perspective and an acclaimed account of the pre-seventies era entertainer. I've put time into finding these resources and would love to use them in any way. Thoughts or help would be so very much appreciated. Browneagle.44 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's career is not mentioned in many major publications. I'm not sure if a lighting director would be mentioned at all in a publication, even in the event in which they worked, due to the nature of their work.

However, I contacted Mr. Silber directly and was emailed a list of press coverage snippets. I'm working on sourcing them right now. He's also emailing me a DVD of an episode of a 60 minutes-style show the BBC did about him. There is also an award the Lettermen gave Mr. Silber for his time spent with them.

At this point, I'm not sure what to do. Again, is there a way to use the resources ( IE, Silber's book) in the Davis article?

Thanks in advance for your help. Browneagle.44 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I've edited my above (original) statement after reviewing Wikipedia's policies and realizing that I might not have necessarily understood Wikipedia's mission to be the objective archives of the world, key word "objective." I have went and removed anything that I think might have been construed as an attack on the project and apologize. Once I realized that Wikipedia's conversations are more open ended than, say, an academia discussion, I realized that I might have come off as rash, and I apologize. That passion and enthusiasm has served me well in Wikiversity, where I am also working on buffing up the Fine Arts faculties; not so much here.

You might not have guessed, but this is my very first Wikipedia article. As such, it takes some getting used to. In a lot of ways, it's like learning how to speak again, metaphorically of course.

So! Detailed discussion. I think we are all in consensus that there's not enough hard evidence to sustain a stand-alone article. I have a feeling that even if I was to find enough publications to establish notoriety that something else might come into question, starting this process all over again.

Arthur's book is a first hand account of Davis' career, before his drug use in the mid seventies. I read somewhere that first hand accounts might can be used as references if they are used with caution. Any articles or advice to guide me along?

The main issue is that of objective reliable sources to support notability, as explained in WP:BIO and WP:RELIABLE. If that's satisfied all else will fall into place. If an administrator decides to delete the article you can ask him or her to copy it and save it to a special userpage which you can continue working on. Anyway, I'd hope to get other eyes on this--this needs to be more than a dialogue between two editors. JNW (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie here, so even one of you guys are boundlessly informative.

Can photos help this in any way? As well as the press information I'm working on, Mr. Silber has a couple of awards ( in the form of plaques) as well as a couple of personal letters. I know there's a clause in the guide to citing sources about citing images. Might be a long shot, but could it help? Browneagle.44 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say sourcing would be the biggest issue. I have heard of him so I will not vote one way or another but with more sourcing it should be fine. Definitely an editing issue, not necessarily a deletion. A quick look around for the sales numbers of the book he wrote didnt see any results but that would be a plus to help with WP:AUTHOR. Good luck with it, looks good just needs some tweaks.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The subject tends to appear in books about Sammy Davis Jr, being a close associate. At worst, we should therefore merge into that article where he would merit a mention. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delettion is entirely appropriate; notability is not inherited, and he otherwise fails WP:AUTHOR. Abductive (reasoning) 22:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half Pints Brewing Company

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

COI, advert, non-notable company, weaselly Mannafredo (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:CORP, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:Breweries. Meets more than one criterion there: 1. Is significantly and purposefully mentioned in at least two reliable published works (not directories) — the brewery's products are significantly mentioned in two books; the brewery is the subject of several short articles in the Winnipeg Free Press. 3. Has a unique or rare feature that can be verified by a reliable source — the only craft brewery in Manitoba; the only locally-owned brewery in Manitoba. —Michael Z. 2010-11-26 22:38 z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 2010-11-27 01:00 z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recent improvements have underlined notability, I think. bobrayner (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs cleanup/work, but it seems to pass the stink test. DigitalC (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SketchEl

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

Delete There is no evidence of notability. None of the "references" even mentions "SketchEl" at all. All but one of them are simply links to other software in a list introduced by "The primary tools are similar to other popular editor such as..." and the one other "reference" is a link to a page about Mobile Molecular DataSheet, the relevance of which is given as "The native formats used by SketchEl for storing molecules and datasheets are also used by MMDS (Mobile Molecular DataSheet)." Web searches also failed to find any independeent sources: just download sites, Wikipedia, etc. (It is necessary to filter out large numbers of hits for "sketchel", nothing to do with "SketchEl".) I originally PRODDED the article on 17 November, but the author put a "hangon" on it, and wrote a message at Talk:SketchEl asking that it should not be deleted. Clearly this was meant to contest the PROD, so I removed the PROD notice, and explained the situation on the author's talk page. Since then the author has done nothing to address the reasons for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, no evidence of notability. bobrayner (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is the reconsider procedure? SketchEl still exists and has been noted by independent people. E.g. Ref Ertl, P. (2010). "Molecular structure input on the web". Journal of Cheminformatics. 2 (1): 1–0. doi:10.1186/1758-2946-2-1. PMC 2827360. PMID 20298528. and Ref Villoutreix, B. O.; Renault, N.; Lagorce, D.; Sperandio, O.; Montes, M.; Miteva, M. A. (2007). "Free Resources to Assist Structure-Based Virtual Ligand Screening Experiments". Current Protein and Peptide Science. 8 (4): 381–411. doi:10.2174/138920307781369391. PMID 17696871.. I am not affiliated with SketchEI myself. Egonw (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ishayas' Ascension

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

Unsourced and uncritical article on what some assert is a cult. Maintenance tagged since May but not fixed. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Being a cult should not be a reason for deletion, but it's just not properly sourced. I briefly googled and didn't find any substantial discussion by independent sources, so I think it fails on notability. bobrayner (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm finding this kind of tough to call, because there does appear to be a scholarly work that analyses the movement: it is discussed in Joshua Gunn's Modern occult rhetoric: mass media and the drama of secrecy in the twentieth century, published by Alabama University Press. There's also this article in a British local newspaper. Nothing else I've found could be said to constitute independent coverage. I am inclined to view this as coming up just short of notability: we're looking at a couple of paragraphs in a book and one piece in a local paper, and if that's all the independent coverage that exists then the vast majority of the content in the article cannot ever be adequately cited.

NB: this article was created as a verbatim copy of the still-substantially-identical Ishayas back in May '07 (versions at creation: Ishayas; Ishayas' Ascension. I don't want to merge and redir while a deletion discussion is ongoing but suggest that the outcome of this discussion should apply to both. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think this article is very important to combat those trying to make money of the "secrecy" of this practise. I can't think of a better example of the importance of Wikipedia. I've made some edits adding references. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.118.5 (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High School Quiz Show

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

No indication of importance, no third-party sources cited at all. — Timneu22 · talk 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High School Quiz Show airs on a major station in a major metropolitan area and was renewed for a second season. The show was discussed by numerous news sources such as boston.com, the Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Those mentions on Boston.com are, to my mind, just barely sufficient to get it over the notability threshold. bobrayner (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although WGBH produces a lot of programs that are seen nationwide on PBS, this isn't one of them. Nor is this show at all unique-- high school quiz shows are a Sunday morning staple in most television markets, with each school sending four or five students who wear formal clothing and buzz in as questions are posed to them. I acknowledge that we have an entire Category:Student quiz television series, and maybe some of those need to be reviewed. In that this one bestows a "state championship", then I think it qualifies as notable in the same sense that an annual state basketball tournament would be. Maybe the title needs to be moved to something that reflects what state is in. I'll start spelling, "M-A-S-S..." waiting for the kid with the bow tie and glasses to buzz in... Mandsford 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local tv shows about local students that do not attract attention outside the immediate area are not notable, and this is no exception. As an example that is an exception because it has more than local notice, see It's Academic DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kearney

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN guideline for political nobility (he did not win election to the Scottish Parliament) or WP:BASIC guideline for other activities. There are plenty of sources for him speaking for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, (eg1) but not him personally. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or failing that Revert back to this version. The worst problem with the article as it currently stands is horrible, horrible soapbox snippets like "those in Scotland who still uphold an anti-Catholic bias" and "Kearney is often attacked by dogmatic secularists, and anti faith bigots." However, that is only a recent addition and we should really consider the pre-soapbox version. But I agree with the nominator that there's not enough coverage to justify an article. Most of the media coverage about him personally was related to the election in 1999 (and not in the tone that Ton vore is using), and I agree that simply acting as a spokesperson for a notable organisation doesn't confer independent notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsuccessful former candidate, currently a soapbox for the subject, previously looks like a soapbox for someone else. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up - he was on the front page of The Herald yesterday, and is a very weel kent figure in Scottish public life. There are quite literally hundreds of reliable ext sources pointing to his notability. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, which is a clearly notable organisation. I don't see any evidence to suggest the individual is notable independent of that organisational notability, ie the sources are saying "RCC media director PK says", rather than "PK, who is media director of the RCC". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC) --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've seen a fair bit of coverage in independent sources which is about the individual, not about some faceless spokesman. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] &c. If somebody's asserted notability has arisen in the course of their job, I think it would be very silly to expect notability to be established by sources which don't touch on their job - could we prove that Joseph Stalin was notable without any reference to Soviet leadership? I do have some concern about WP:NOTNEWS though, if notability arises from current events rather than a previous election. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit of a silly analogy. Most people could name another (if not all) leader of the Soviet Union. I doubt if anyone (other than perhaps the subject himself!) could name another media director of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. His "notability" (such as it is) is completely derived from being a spokesman for the RCC in Scotland. Any significant statements he makes should be noted on the articles relating that body. We don't even know if these are his opinions (they might be, but that would be supposition) or if he is merely reading a prepared statement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really just reporting on him as a mouthpiece, as he has trumpeted outrageous statements he has made for his employer. There are very few media spokepeople or failed candidates who are notable, and not seeing it here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Tavares

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

An actress who has played a number of small parts in TV and direct-to-video productions, but the article lacks reliable independent sources attesting to encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not convinced that she passes WP:NACTOR / WP:BASIC. Better sources would help. bobrayner (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant coverage to meet GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete. I think she barely passed WP:NACTOR but this is a BLP and the sourcing isn't there and I'm not finding anything significant at google news. Having a recurring role in 2 TV shows you would think there would be a little more buzz about her. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meiosis XY Female Syndrome

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

Possible hoax or misunderstanding; source cited does not seem to support text of article. Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Blatant hoax. Only Google hit is for this page. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may well be a hoax, but the physician mentioned does exist. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a hoax. Wikipedia has a page on xx male syndrome as well as on AIS. Meosis Xy female syndrome exists. Reach Charmian Quigley. It is a fact of genetics that this phenomenon occurs in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsexual Queen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your sources? We don't have articles here without verifiable reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Verifability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Being a "fact of genetics" does not qualify for inclusion without a reliable source saying so. And a Google search for the subject as titled turns up one hit, the article in question and no more. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this is a hoax, but I'm also not convinced that this isn't a misnomer for something covered elsewhere, at eg: Swyer syndrome or Androgen insensitivity syndrome. I can find some refs for "XY Female Syndrome" but zero for "Meiosis XY Female Syndrome". Still waiting on improved refs. Hairhorn (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete target can't be determined seems likely that it's a misnomer. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To what? If it's a misnomer, what's it a misnomer for? The closing administrator is not clairvoyant. You need to determine what you think this should redirect to. Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that despite two requests, here and on the article's talk page, Transsexual Queen has not supplied the page numbers of the book that is purportedly the supporting source here. Checking some of Quigley's actual work, such as xyr article in Principles of molecular medicine (Humana Press, 2006), I find no mention of this syndrome at all, but, as Hairhorn notes, mention of 46,XY pseudohermaphroditism (one of several types of pseudohermaphroditism that Quigley mentions) as Swyer syndrome. There's no evidence from Quigley at least, contrary to what is set out in this article and asserted above, that this is an alternative name for that. Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Unless the article content can be verified, I believe in this situation that the article should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closest syndrome is probably Swyer syndrome or pure gonadal dysgenesis as noted above. This review article and this review article look at a number of XY female syndromes (and no other searches on a quick review of Pubmed using "XY female" came up with much else). Swyer syndrome comes closest to the description with normal genitals, fallopian tubes, uterus, tall stature but they have gonadal dysgenesis and therefore cannot menstruate which does not match the description of the AFD'd article.Yobol (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be an unverifiable entity. -- Scray (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a little digging in the literature and there seems to be at least one documented case of this genotype/phenotype combination in humans: [55]. A more useful article could be XY sex reversal, discussing XY female syndromes in a broader context. --WS (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Swyer syndrome. I cannot find any evidence that "Meiosis XY Female Syndrome" exists in the scientific literature (e.g. PubMed search). I do not have the book being cited here, but it looks like the symptoms mentioned are closest to the Swyer symptoms. This article looks like it may be attempting to describe the mechanism that causes Swyer syndrome, so I believe that the two are related. WTF? (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's completely unsourced and right now, doesn't look like it can be. I've personally never heard of this, FWIW - the nearest thing I can think of is XY gonadal dysgenesis, as others have pointed out, but even that doesn't fit right. Technically, it should be possible for a mutation of CBX2 to manifest in this way by inhibiting SRY (see here) but it's unheard of in the medical community from what I can see. There's just that one journal reference. And I'm not sure of the significance of having meiosis in the name. All of the journal references I see talk about 'XY gonadal dysgenesis' - Alison ^❤ 03:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And disregard the effects of CBX2, since the article mentions "unequal crossing over between y and x chromosomes". Also, mention of missing SRY in the article is clearly Turner syndrome - Alison ^❤ 03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if it's undocumented by the medical establishment because it's too new or whatev, we still can't write about it - Alison ^❤ 03:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/I know I have the best of time and space

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Fire 1978, Greece, New York

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

Non-notable fire. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending additional sources being found/not found. AfD created two minutes after article creation. (Note, article was created earlier and speedied it seems, appears due to NPOV issues.) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - would likely support with a rewrite. Ten were killed, making this a little more notable, in my view. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response - on a global basis, a fire in which only ten people died is just another slow news day. I realize they were North Americans, but "ten people died" is not an assertion of notability in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, I agree with you completely. But I'm willing to give a little good faith that something could be turned up to indicate more notability before throwing an article to the AFD wolves. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 people may seme trivial to some people, considering that some natural disasters which kill thousands are not even documented on here but the National Fire Association considers 10 or more people killed in a hotel fire to be notable here. If you consider how many hotel fires have ever taken place in the United States, literally thousands upon thousands I'm certain, obviously those listed have some claim to notability as fire incidents in hotels over the years in my view.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still neutral on this one, but the fire was ruled arson, so it's essentially about the unsolved 1978 murder of ten people. Mandsford 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, I can't say keep. The "I realize they were North Americans" (Canadians staying in a U.S. motel) comment is kind of another way of saying that if this had been a hotel fire in Pakistan, it probably wouldn't be notable. While that doesn't mean that we should apply bias , the only reason this came up at all was because someone made a Facebook page about the case and it came back in the news recently [56] [57] and [58]. What's striking is a lack of notability that surprised the reporters of those articles. The Star noted that "There are no monuments or memorials to the fire victims in Greece. A Red Lobster and another hotel stand where the Holiday Inn once did," while another article quotes someone as saying "This is one of the worst hotel fires in Monroe County history, and if you Google it, it's like it never happened... This is a major event and it seems like it's been forgotten and it absolutely shouldn't be that way." For whatever reason, this never really went beyond WP:NEWS after November and December 1978, either in the U.S. or Canada. Applying the same standard that we would if the fire had happened in 2008 and was, sad to say, ignored thereafter, it doesn't pass the notability test. Mandsford 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge Per the sources in book publications I've added and recognition by the National Fire Agency as one of only several hotel fires in 70 years to kill 10 or more people. I think that just about qualifies it for notability myself given the book dcoumention on it not to mention the very breif discsison of it in a book on human engineering here. If it was a very low scale incident I doubt anybody would have heard of it to write about it in their book. It is covered in multiple books but admittedly it is hardly Great Fire of London... and I'm not convinced that covering such events as isolated incidents is worth a seperate article. Personally I think this information would be better in a List of (notable) hotel fires in the United States summarising those documented in that Fire Agency summary. Either way I think the existing info and sources are encyclopedic, I'd support a merge into an article about the History of hotel fires in the United States, that's the best way to use this material I think... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge or otherwise Delete - it doesn't appear to justify its own article and I would endorse the merge proposal by Dr. Blofeld. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has long included an article on a 1983 explosion in Buffalo, New York that killed seven people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Division_Street_explosion

Seems like a double standard to not include this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.169.161 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say this article is more notable than the other, which looks to fail WP:N and should really be prodded - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merging (in much briefer form) into History of hotel fires in the United States and eventually to List of hotel fires in the United States is OK, or it could be merged into Greece (town), New York. A lot of the text article is padding at the moment to establish a notability that doesn't really exist, at least not enough for an independent article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly what I think, Its the sort of thing which is worth mentioning in a fire history article or history of Greece, New York but only briefly. I agree, it isn't notable enough for an independent article on it, unlike MGM Grand fire...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear keep, not a weak keep. Typically, we accept (or at least ought to accept) outside authoritative sources for determining the degree of importance, rather than analyze the evidence ourselves. This should especially true with NOT NEWS, where the criterion of long-lasting importance is concerned--such sources are the best ones to determine it. the only alternative is the personal views of whomever should happen to be interested in a given AfD discussion--that is an extremely weak criterion, & if there is anything better we ought to use it. If NFPA considers 10 to be a suitable cut-off for listing in the list of worst disasters, 10 it is. If they say 10, we have no basis for saying >10, except our individual personal inclinations. (myself, I have no fixed idea of where I personally think the line should be, so I go by the sources. if I did have a personal opinion of what ought to be important in this area, I think I would still find it necessary to go by the sources.) One excellent source like that is sufficient, as long as there is also enough material for an article, which there is. We have the rule that the GNG has been modified by NOT NEWS, as it certainly ought to be, for otherwise we would be wildly inclusive of the utterly unimportant. But the problem is that some of the key criteria in not news are totally non-objective and require guesswork. Consistency is a virtue in reference works, and we should be glad of any opportunity to find something consistent where we do not have to use our own guesswork or predilections. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing clearly demonstrates that the topic is notable, being addressed in detail by multiple reliable and independent sources. The nomination is thus counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the NFPA source currently in the article. 10 fatalities per incident is a rather high bar to set, and this particular event meets it. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into History of hotel fires in the United States. The subject technically appears to meet WP:GNG, however, Wikipedia might be better served if the event were addressed in context of the larger article. Location (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nana to Kaoru

AfDs for this article:

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

Search for third party sources only comes up with a couple of trivial mentions related to changes in a manga magazine. No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources found to pass WP:BK. OVA and live action adaptations have also received no coverage beyond the original announcement. —Farix (t | c) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Farix here. There is insufficient third-party coverage for this series to warrant an entry in Wikipedia at the moment. That situation may change with time. Don't be put off reading Nana to Kaoru though... it's actually a rather good story. David Bailey (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The last AFD ended in delete, but someone forgot to delete it. Check the history of the article [59] and it shows the entire history is there. Did it get deleted? Some sort of bug? Did an administrator undelete it? Dream Focus 03:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was missed. The decision to delete was made on 18 August 2010, but wasn't actioned. Xezbeth (an admin) removed the {AfDM} template on 28 Oct 2010 and then continued to edit it. David Bailey (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Markellis

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

Delete. No references after waiting for more than one year. WP:BURDEN is on originator, not on reviewing editors. Student7 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note also WP:BEFORE #9. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per dozens of available sources, five of which have been added. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Decker. Not appropriate to nominate just because its unreferenced under the relevant rules yadda yadda yadda. But I encourage nominator to help work through the unreferenced BLP backlog, whether via Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue or elsewhere. Cheers!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON"

[2] "One Man Great Enough"

[1]

[2]