Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 5

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 4 February 6 February >

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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure Warrah (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President's cup regatta

edit
President's cup regatta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to have been a copy-paste of a relevant webpage. Not clear if the subject is notable: Unable to find any current webpages which could be used as references. thisisace (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • These help? [1] and a general search. I can find no copy-vio, unless the source page was removed. Unfortunately, that is a rather generic name, and so difficult to pick out relevent Cites for. Adding ___location names into the search helps. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:51, 5 February 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. I'm closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination. There's no consensus here to do anything whatsoever. Discussion regarding notability was quite sparse, with only a few established editors involved, and was further sidetracked by the abusive sockpuppetry. Under these circumstances, I believe it's much better to restart the AfD process from scratch. As an editorial action, I have reverted the article to Peridon's version on Feb 2. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

edit
Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referring from the speedy deletion queue. The reason given for speedy deletion was: "This article is a hoax based on a nonsense "Pope document" which can be bought in Via di S. Pelegrin, Rome, for 8 €. There has never been any regularizstion, indeed the archdiocese of Hamburg issued an official warning end of 2009 of Mr. Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, posing unlawfully as bishop as the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei states. Please remove this pretentious nonsense swiftly." No opinion as nominator. theProject (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources cited, and the article is disorganized and very unencyclopedic. There is even a portion of the article which goes very off topic and talks about excommunication stuff. I don't really see a reason to save this article, but if someone wants to, then they can be my guest, I guess, but my default vote is to delete this. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DONT Delete please this article is not a hoax it is about a very important bishop because he is the first one out of thuc-line that did end the shisma with the pope and came into union with pope again. because of this importance the article explains detailed the basis of his excommunication and its ending. The picture showing him and the pope during mass is a very reliable proof. the warnings against this bishop are the same warnings that german bishops give against the bishops of Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). but they are all in union again too. it is all about the tridentine mass and discussions about the vaticanum II. there is many to add to this article and i have a lot informations I can add.

--Bischof-Ralph (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Incoherent and of uncertain notability apart from (possibly) in certain Roman Catholic circles. References: 1) two oldish men, one presumably a pope. 2) A 'blessing' (?) from a pope. So? Peridon (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Proposal lower down. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning, this Account --> User:Bischof-Ralph is a Fake.--NebMaatRe (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fake and this NebMaatRe is spreading lies about me. He is obviously an antesemitic atheist that made me already a lot of problems in german wikipedia too. I did restore the article after the vandalism of NebMaatRe and i think i did a mistake and accidentialy deleted this part about the controversy about this article. I am sorry for this please install this again. I am new in wikipedia so I dont know how to add this again. Thank you. I dont think Wikipedia should be abused for private religious posting wars like NebMaatRe and some others of his group are doing it ! --Bischof-Ralph (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:Bischof-Ralph is in fact blocked on the German Wikipedia. For some background on the issues brought up in the article, please see Sedevacantism ('see' wasn't intended as a pun...). The business in the article seems to me to be unencyclopaedic, being unreferenced and highly disputed. Ralph Napierski (which is the claimed name of Bischof-Ralph) seems quite involved in promotional exercises and is to be found on MySpace etc, which is not, I think, a conventional area for bishops. I have no opinions on the validity of the theology involved here, not being an adherent of either side. I do know that one side appears to think the other side to be 'heretical', and the 'heretical' side think the established side to be superseded (but not recognising it). There seems to be some point making here that reconciliation has taken place, thus legitimising the activities of the 'heretics'. No evidence is given, and anyway, if there was, it should be in the main article. As a postscript, to show the complications possible here, I give a quote from Sedevacantism: "Orthodox Catholic doctrine therefore considers sedevacantist ordinations of priests and bishops valid where the appropriate conditions are fulfilled, but regards them as sinful and canonically criminal acts without any standing in Church law." Makes international politics look like a bed of roses.... Peridon (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further I quote from Napierski's Jesus Christ University site http://jcu-engl.cms4people.de/mission.html

"BECOME A MISSIONARY AND A PASTOR !

START TODAY !

Download the >>>SEMINARBOOK<<< (PDF 2MB) with all informations."

Unusual from a Catholic organisation. Rather more reminiscent of certain American Protestant organisations. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


thank you for your comment. it is the pope himself that is sending the priests and bishops to be active in the internet: http://www.youtube.com/vatican?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#p/a/u/2/pWAYaZeUja0 The pope himself has a facebook account.... Yes i have many accounts and homepages and i am in many communities active. myspace account: http://www.myspace.com/tridentine_mass In many communities i am well known so to say that i am a fake is simply rediculous ! Wikipedia is not the place for religious attacking we should concentrate on collecting facts instead of spreading ideas. In Germany I am blocked because of antisemitism which is rediculous as well. To say that Jesus Christ should be preached to everybody including the jews is not antisemitic ! I am new in wikipedia but i think diskussions about the topic of the article should be discussed in its discussion page and published when there is proof. right now User: NebMaatRe is doing Vandalism. --Bischof-Ralph (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability so far. Just another priest. There are thousands of them spreading their views. Big deal. I don't see anything here to make it encyclopedic. It also seems the OP has an agenda, as per his comments. -- Alexf(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: I agree with Peterkingiron, subject as a Catholic bishop is notable.

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Re: Proposal This version is not a good version because instead of changing wrong informations there is written in the article that this information is wrong. statements like this belong on the discussion page and then there has to be found proof and then there has to be changed the information.

Since this article is very short anyways we should just fix it and keep only the information that is proofed and agreed with by us. Example: To Mention that the city Rosenheim mentioned in the article is the wrong Rosenheim must not be in the article itself but on the discussion page. And after telling the source of this information the article should be updated with refering to the correct Rosenheim. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man is not a catholic bishop. He is considered a schismatic by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and warned against by many German dioceses for being an impostor. I have added sources for this to the articel as well as deleted some of the nonsense about reunification with the Holy See. --Papphase (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One may be notable for being an in house bishop, another may be notable for being a schismatic bishop. Martin Luther is quite notable - and wasn't he in some sort of breakaway movement? We're not here to consider the rights and wrongs of religious doctrines. We're here to consider the notability of the subject. I think there's enough controversy around him for a Keep provided that the info is neutrally worded AND SOURCED RELIABLY, and that all the Bischof-Ralph stuff goes. It seems to have gone, at time of posting. As the article currently stands, I think it is OK to stand as a stub. I am not connected with either side in this matter (or with Luther either...). Peridon (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently undecided as the article has gone back to a sort of Bischof-Ralph style. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE Papphase, the reason why Bishop Seiwert Fleige has been shismatic is the fact that he was recognised as catholic priest and later as bishop. the fact that he is a consecrated bishop is very clear and confirmed in wikipedia itself many times and all consecrations in the Thuc-Line are considered to be valid by Roman Catholic Church. The only question here is: Is he shismatic or is he in union with Pope ?

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I did bring the article into a form that is well proofed with sources. A speial thanks to papphase for his very good research about the warnings against the bishop. i tried to find the original statement that this warnings are refering at, but its not public I guess. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]




Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Yes this would be very good ! --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Something must have happend in 2008 or 2009 that did cause Bishop Seiwert-Fleig to be shismatic again. We should try to find out what this was. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


I repost our discussion about the excommunication reasons from discussion page:

" did move this into discussion section: "In 1980 Seiwert-Fleige left the Palmarian movement. Bishop Jean-Gérard Roux (not in communion with the Holy See) later re-consecrated him conditionally on April 8, 1995. His consecration is often considered as valid but illicit but in fact it is valid and not illicit because of the fact that Bishop Thuc has been appointed as Legat by Pope Pius XI. [4] This appointment has been given 1938 to Thuc by a "motu Proprio" as authorization to consecrate and allow consecrations without papal mandate. So the reason of the excommunication of Seiwert-Fleige has not been an excommunication "latae sententiae" because of CIC Can. 1382 as result of an illicit consecration. The reason of his excommunication has been sedevacantism. [5]"

This cant be right because Dominguez did bishop consecration not Thuc. So this is only acceptable for first consecration. And your are right that reason of excommunication has been sedevacantism. --Old-chobo (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Thuc excluded his consecrated bishops from canon law so consecrations by dominguez was not illicit. --Michelle cannon (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


But was Thuc allowed to do this ? If not it would be illicit. --Old-chobo (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


If it was illicit that Thuc did this ,it still might have been valid. And if it was not valid and illicit it still wouldnt have been the reason for excommunication if they believed it was valid: Can. 1321 — § 1. and Can. 1323 - § 2 --Artistic-mind (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


This is correct it cant be reason for excommunication and if it was illicit or not is almost impossible to decide since the rights given Thuc with his appointing as legate have been secret. So we know only what was "well known" in vatican and what the followers of Thuc told us. But this discussion isnt important anyways because of the obvious excommunication because of sedevacatism --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (sorry I accidently hit wrong buttons) --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Please Note: User:Fan-of-Pope, User:Artistic-mind, and User:Old-chobo are suspected sockpuppets of a blocked user, User:Bischof-Ralph. The investigation is here. Wine Guy~Talk 05:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very obvoius that I dont share the oppinion of Bishop-Ralph which already is enough to show that i am no sockpuppet. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Papphase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to support notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:41, 9 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative laser cutting

edit
Creative laser cutting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A grand total of nine Google hits for this term. Additionally, created by an account with a spammy username, so there's the stench of promotion as well. Blueboy96 22:37, 5 February 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, G11. The article's author, JanaGanesan (talk · contribs) stated in PUI discussions regarding two files in the article that s/he created this article "on behalf of" Sabre Holdings ([3], [4]). Author blocked as a likely role account. Blueboy96 13:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Server Management

edit
Organic Server Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As stated in the Ref section itself, this is a term coined by a single company with no significant outside coverage. Patently non-notable. King Öomie 22:13, 5 February 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. JForget 02:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurodisc Records

edit
Neurodisc Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub on what appears to be a non notable record company.Does not assert its importance and notability. Distinct lack of solid sources. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 22:02, 5 February 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 withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asguard (band)

edit
Asguard (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Would pass speedy deletion (as the band is signed), but I can't find any sources about this band, despite being active for 12+ years. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the albums have been reviewed, but there seems to be no sources about the band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the sources that you found? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 12:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, besides the ones that Joe Chill found, here are some more: The Guantlet, Punk News, PR - not the best source, Morrah from Russia with love, A passing mention with Russian links possibly a blog, something else in Cyrillic text, a site in Roman and Cyrillic but may be a blog, an interview at a blog, Spirit of Metal site, etc. Admittedly, not all of them are great sources, but they do show that Asguard has gotten a lot of attention and a big fan base, as well as touring Internationally. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 6 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Gavriilidis

edit
Dimitrios Gavriilidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 5 February 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 List of power stations in Sweden. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind farms in Sweden

edit
List of wind farms in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list duplicates data from List of power stations in Sweden. I propose a deletion or redirection of the article. Rehman(+) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, the nominator previously moved&widened the "list of wind farms" into a "list of power stations", and subsequently Johnfos restored the previous list from the redirect. So the AfD is basically about going back to the redirect or having the recreated article in parallel to the "list of power stations". From a WP:SWEDEN perspective I could in principle live with both options, provided that the "list of wind farms" has anything additional to add. So for now it's neutral for me. However, this seems like an issue where it's good to have some consistency across "in country X" articles, and the nomination doesn't make it clear to me if it's "delete" or "keep" that would contribute to such consistency. So I'd be happy to hear some input from those who edit energy/power generation/wind power articles. Tomas e (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Am not that smart in these history stuff, but thee histry looks like it were an redirect before. So better that way. 119.235.14.154 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a plausible search term, and link redirect is easy. This is a duplicate page creation. No need for a fork (the original page isn't all that big). Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My first though is that the list of hydrostations is far too short. I have come across (i.e. just randomly driven past) several hydro power stations in Sweden (mostly in Jämtland) and I am certain that parts of Sweden as a considerable hydro power production. Also, the article up for discussion has a "future" section which would have to be incorporated into the main list, should a delete go through. If all power stations of all three types, plus biomass stations and future stations are added, the main list is beginning to get rather long, and a content split seems reasonable to me. Arsenikk (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're understanding the discussion above. This content is largely copied. The relevant question ins not whether or not it's useful, but whether or not it warrants a separate article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional redirect For not i think re-direct, but, If the windmills article is redeveloped in having more of an introduction section that it can act as a stand alone Im inclined to sway towards keeping. Until this occurs I find that its just fine where it is in list of power stations. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:01, 10 February 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Sign Museum

edit
American Sign Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub on a museum. Contains little information and does not assert its importance and notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody try to expand this article then. I am not convinced.I cannot find any decent information that would make this a half decent article and I seriously doubt that it is really that notable. Yes those sources mention the museum but the bulk of the content actually about the museum seems very sparse... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not an expand-on-demand service. I might get to the article eventually, since I do find the subject interesting, but it's not a priority for me. The links I included above aren't the only sources; there's plenty more to be found through the links that were automatically generated at the top of the discussion. Like this. I'm confident that someone could write at least a few paragraphs about this place.
Aren't you the guy responsible for thousands of short geography stubs? What led you to single out this article? Zagalejo^^^ 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've also contributed significantly to over 10 featured articles, over 40 GAs, have expanded many articles on museums and done more towards expanding/cleaning up articles than most people have ever done on this site. I have AFDs thrown at me by people who do nothing for this project, I have as much right as anybody to nominate articles I think are lackking in the notability/sources department. Its rather ignorant for you to even claim that. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything bad about your contributions; I would (and have) defended them at AFD. I just thought it was a little odd that someone like you would be demanding others to expand an article. You always seemed like someone who was willing to stand up for stubs as the seeds that make the project grow.
I still don't understand what kinds of sources you are looking for. Here's a full-length article from USA Today. That's in addition to everything else that's been mentioned. How much do you want? Zagalejo^^^ 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great article, by the way! Good find.Thomsonsr (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the weekend and I will beef it up. I won't have a legit hometown museum deleted from Wikipedia if I can help it.Thomsonsr (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with many museums, I couldn't find any solid sources which actually said much about the actual displays and content of the museum. For many museums, especially in the United States, there is usually a lot of info online which is more than enough to write a full detailed article. Howeber for this museum I only saw it briefly mentioned in some articles without the substantial coverage I'd expect of a notable museum. You know tons of photographs and detailed information on the artifacts. If these sources do exist which provide detailed knowledhe of the exhibits and functioning of the museum I apologise but I could not find them and as such I have doubts about whether its content is really of note. That US Today source at least has some scraps of info on displays and 6 photographs. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I contacted the museum via Twitter to get permission to use photos from their website and blog. Both have been updated recently. As far as notability, the museum is moving to a larger ___location, has 3,800 objects cataloged and is the ONLY public sign museum in the United States. A local business, Neonworks of Cincinnati, moved its operations into the museum as part of a live exhibit also. That info came from a recent news report by local TV station FOX 19: here. Give me a little bit of time and I'll try to help this not-for-profit 501(C)(3) corporation get a proper Wiki page. If anything, we need more museums on Wikipedia.Thomsonsr (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually while articles require independent third-party sources, contacting museums or indeed any institution to request information and photographs is an excellent idea. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, Thomsonsr and I have done some expanding. I think the article is shaping up pretty well. Zagalejo^^^ 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you've proved me wrong in finding those sources on what looked otherwise like a local museum of dubious notability. I hope you continue to expand it and get hold of some pictures, you could visit the museum yourself Thompson and take some pics and you could new propose this for DYK nom. Excellent work. Nomination withdrawn, a non involved party can close this. This article now clearly asserts notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to close this Bejnar as a nomination withdrawn. I do hope Thompson does expand this further as he said though. I'm off to bed. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All signs point to keep! Nighty, night. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 9 February 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. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pavlov

edit
Stefan Pavlov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of meeting WP:ARTIST. Unreferenced. Disputed prod noq (talk) 20:46, 5 February 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 Daisy Dares You. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Enemy

edit
Number One Enemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • REDIRECT - I actually believe this should be a redirect to Daisy Dares You but, having made that alteration twice, explaining the relevant policy on the talk page and being reverted without comment, I'm going this route. This is an unreleased album coming out later this month by an artist who "is yet to release an album or single". According to WP:NSONG: "... generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label ... an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." I think there's a determined attempt to advertise this unreleased song by an unreleased artist, which is why I'm taking this extraordinary step rather than simply waiting a few weeks. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - I note further that the article was created as a redirect and thereafter remade in the first of three conversions to an article, not two as I said above. And one further quote from WP:NSONG: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." The emphasis is not mine but that of the policy. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE & REDIRECT - This article lacks references. I don't think it's currently notable as one article. Maybe a mention on Daisy Dares You is sufficient. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge, can always be redone if it becomes notable Alan - talk 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge, not currently notable per WP:N in its own right. Truthanado (talk) 18:30, 6 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bay City, MI Ghost Hunters

edit
Bay City, MI Ghost Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found to establish notability. No improvement since being tagged in July 2009 LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WraithBoard

edit
WraithBoard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game/app. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:32, 5 February 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. There are valid (and invalid) arguments made for both keeping and deleting the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runa Akiyama

edit
Runa Akiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable biography. Does not assert importance of the subject and lacks solid sources which indicate real significance of this person. I only found the anime network profile and a bunch of mirror sites. Evne in Japanese I fail to see why it is necessary to have a biography of this person. DOes providing a voice in some film or cartoon automatically mean we must write about their life? . ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails both WP:N and WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER; the lack of any coverage, much less significant, coverage of this person means she is not notable and per WP:BLP, there is nothing that can be said in the article beyond her name that could not potentially be considered harmful -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voice actors should be treated like regular actors. Playing a significant role in that many notable series, makes you clearly notable. Dream Focus 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multi voice acting roles since 1979, I believe this should be kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No hits in google books. That is usually a good indicator of widespread notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you search for the name in Japanese, you get some results from Google book search. [10] Always remember to check the Japanese name. And the only thing you need to check, is how many notable series they were in. Voice actors are like actors, but instead of standing around talking to each other in front of a camera, they just talk in a recording studio. It isn't just reading, but putting emotions into the tone of voice. Dream Focus 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I agree, many voice actors are notable. But I demand solid sources like Kinema junpō: Kinejun: Motion picture times, Issues 1178-1180‎ - Page 62 then rather than what regularly appears to be referencing to fan sites. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, you're becoming extremely rude, tossing your demands around in an area where you have no clue about any of the topics. Keep in mind that Kinema Junpo doesn't keep their articles online, so unless someone happens to have the magazine it's going to be impossible to find things like that. She clearly meets WP:ENTERTAINER due to playing multiple leading roles in multiple notable series, and the current refs in the article clearly show this. The sites being used for references are not fan sites. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per my comment above. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe, show some moderation please. Himalayan Explorer's comment here is anterior to the debate you had for Chieko Higuchi AfD. See the time stamps. So it's not the previous debate all over again. --KrebMarkt 08:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of when they were made, his comments were over the top. If he wants sources from specific places, he should be hunting for them himself, not demanding that other people provide them. If he can't do that himself, then he shouldn't be placing such demands on others. It's fine if he requests that people try to find such sources, if possible, but demanding it (or requiring it, as he mentions below) is not assuming good faith on the part of the other editors and is placing unreasonable burdens on people who may not have the resources he's demanding. I know I'd love to have every issue of Kinema Junpo at my fingertips, but I don't, and I doubt I ever will. (I think I may own two issues, total). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely rude? Why? This was nominated shortly before the other one. Perhaps you too the word "demand" too harshly as tone is often difficult to understand on the web. I meant require. I would like to see written sources. Note that this was made before you told me about the lack of info online for these topics, which I now understand. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the method you go about "asking" for these sources. You shouldn't be demanding anything here as you have no more authority than anyone else. It's fine if you request that people try to find some printed sources for material in the article, but you shouldn't be demanding it or requiring it. That's my only beef here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, when you've put as much work and effort into wikipedia as I have, its a comparitively small order... No, its not my place to "order" people to do things, I can request people to do things, rather than "ordering". But again with this article there is not an abundance of sources in the traditional sense and it didn't assert its importance. Its not exactly Hirohito or 1995 Kobe earthquake or anything is it? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, when you've put in as much work and effort into Wikipeida as I have, it becomes very annoying and often times offensive when a random editor comes into an area they clearly know nothing about and claims that I and other editors are not doing enough. I and other editors have fixed the emitted problems with this particular article, that of sourcing and notability, so that it will not be deleted. But it's both annoying and offensive when you insist that the article be expanded to a !stub or else it must be deleted. I also find your repeated assertions that official websites as are somehow "fansites" down right atrocious as it not only shows a lack of knowable, but a complete unwillingness to actually evaluate the content. —Farix (t | c) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Atrocious, extremely offensive, annoying." Get a grip. What a big kid. I've nominated two articles for deletion based on a lack of sources and notability and did have a point about them not seeming to assert notability or having many reliable sources to expand it. You and Nippon Joe are behaving like school children in your exaggerated response. Exactly what I had expected actually. You didn't even stop to consider discussing it rationally and that I might actually have withdrawn the nomination amicably. Grow up. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have our support. He operates this way. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You were the one that kept making demands after the initial problems were fixed. You were the one who stated that other editors weren't "doing enough." And you were the one who practicably declared the editors WP:ANIME as incompetent to do the stubbiness of over 600 VA articles. Those are the actions of a child who doesn't want to admit that they were wrong in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the average reader who is not a manga crazed fan, sources such as this do not look the most credible. It may well be a very respectable mainstream source to you guys and acceptable (because it is one of the largest anine networks in the world apparently) but it doesn't look the most professional as a source to write articles that's all I'm saying even if it may well be. A site which proclaims, "Animax is the channel of choice for youth trendsetters, image-conscious, tech-savvy young adults and individuals seeking a unique entertainment experience". Not exactly Harvard essay material is it? I've seen the use of books and newspapers in a lot of the GA articles on this topic we have which even to me look far more respectable and what I consider solid sources. Ideally I would like the see similar sources used to write articles such as this. I now understand the reason why if not, but only after I had nominated these articles. Yet people are angrily yelling at me for something I nominated at the same time as the other one without even giving me a chance to discuss what we should do about this. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your nom (obviously), however I do not understand why you would consider an official Asian television network website an unreliable or uncredible source. It would be no different from sourcing something to foodnetwork.com or hgtv.com or even cartoonnetwork.com. Their choice of wording in promoting themselves doesn't lessen what they are. Their site is geared towards their viewers, just like any other television network site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are bias. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Your remarks makes absolutely no sense at all and you are really not helping anything by making random remarks. You haven't even edited in ages...and that was after your photo was rejected in the Anime Expo article by myself and others. Uh huh.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, an official Asian television network is a credible source, I guess though unless you look into the site past the self promotion stuff to attract kids and teenagers then it is easy to initially dismiss it as a poor source to write an encyclopedia article. It is much better to reference to such sites than actual blogs though, although ideally it would be nice for there to be an Encyclopedia of Manga with a lot of information about series and seiyu for which could be used to write articles about these people. May I ask why you believe this seiyu is non notable? I thought Nihon and Farix were corretc ins saying that this person would be widely covered in reliable publications offline in Japan? If I am as wrong about my assumptions of lack of notability of this person and was grossly out of order in nominating this as Nihon and Farix have led me to believe, asserting they strongly pass entertainer and anime project requirements why does another member, a clearly knowledgable one such as yourself seem to contradict what was said by the other members of the project? I've been told I am a terrible person for thinking this biography non notable as it is obviously notable now, apparently. But if you happen to agree with me, and would seem to be far more knowledegable about this subject, perhaps I was not as wrong as Farix claims I am? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...an encyclopedia of manga would generally not have anything to do with voice actors as manga (in English sources anyway) refers purely to the printed works, while anime refers to the animated stuff. :-) There are several anime encyclopedias, but they do not focus on voice actors, just the series themselves and some genres. I do not believe this person is notable because no one has actually produced a single reliable source. I strongly disagree with claims of "sources must exist because she must be notable because she played in some roles." If no one can actually produce the sources, then we can not presume they exist. Claiming "I don't have time" or "I can't get them" is no different "until proven otherwise, they don't exist". If Wikipedia operated by that mantra, then all topics are automatically notable because anyone can claim "well yeah, all those sources are only available offline and no I can't tell you what they are but because they played in roles X and Y they obviously had tons of coverage." Personally I'm rather disappointed in my fellow project members for the unfounded attacks against you in this AfD. Whether they agree or not, the personal attacks are ridiculous and unnecessary. It is not the first time I've disagreed with other project members on such an AfD, though, with other members feeling "its notable because of X even if we can't prove it there are sources" and the AfD ended up closing as keep with a lot of nasty remarks thrown at anyone who dared to ask for the sources to actually be shown. It seems to me a lot of people here keep forgetting that the onus is on the one making the claim that there are sources to actually prove it, rather than attack the nominator for daring to ask for them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Collectonian. I did mean anime rather than manga, But you know what I mean. A good eneyclopedic cocverage in a big book or something. But I believe I have a point about reliable sources and even here there seems to be split over what people's ideas of reliable sources are. I am not demanding anybody do anything in that way, ordering people to expand every single stub to FA or something, rather I am asking kindly for evidence, even a glimmer of widespread coverage in publications I would traditionally look towards, even on a topic such as this. So far, Collectonian is right. Nobody has shown me wide coverage in any publication expect a database entry on a Tv website. I understand that according to Nihon and Farix there is a massive amount of coverage of these people in magazines and newspapers in Japan, but there are Japanese editors on here who should surely, especially being fans of anime, should be able to find something, if these seiyus are as notable as is being claimed. Note that when I say "I demand reliable sources to indicate notability, I'd like to know if there has ever been any extensive coverage of this seiyu in a book, magazine or newspaper in Japan which is not apparent online. If so, that is good enough for me provided it can be used to write a decent article. But my concerns here about sourcing are as valid as they would be on any other topic in determining notability. OK, yes the seiyu might have a few notable voice roles to their credit, but surely notability is also determined by extensive coverage in publications? By extensive coverage I mean more than the database entries currently being used to reference their filmographies. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Collectonian Be accurate would you. Out of the 9 citations currently on the article 7 are certainly reliable, 1 is unsure and 1 is clear COI. Animax is reliable. TV Tokyo is reliable. Nippon Animation is reliable. etc ...
Whatever it's keep or delete, this case should be weighted on the facts asserted by those sources and not on person feelings, feuds, long time antagonisms or any form of biases. --KrebMarkt 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am being accurate. Confirmation of roles is not significant coverage of the person. And back at you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my English understanding, you would excuse me i'm French, you were giving the perception that those sources were not reliable to assert roles. In such case those same sources would not be reliable to assert something like first broacast time. --KrebMarkt 08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious that meeting the GNG requirement would be unattainable based on involved editors capabilities and material resources. Yet it can't be denied that WP:ENTERTAINER can reached just using such primary sources.
Full disclosure, i'm unsatisfied of the situation. Even if we manage miraculously to source those bio, what is the purpose, aim, perspective of such articles in Wikipedia? Are long litany of verified roles a starting point or an evolutionarily dead-end/point of stagnation.
I'm willing to spend craps load time to source such articles but i want a loud and clear answer are those contributions worthless & pointless? If so i will gladly resign from that responsibility. --KrebMarkt 08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this AfD the question is two fold: Does this person can pass WP:ENTERTAINER and Are primary source acceptable to assert entertainer roles. --KrebMarkt 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The roles are verifiable, that is now not disputed as it was initially. But what actually makes them notable is where there is a divide in opinion here, For me notability has to be determined by extensive coverage in publications such as these which are cited for an obviously notable actor Mifune Toshiro, such a coverage is what decides notability for me. That other people think they are worthy of writing about and publishing about. So far nobody has inidicated an offline source which has written about this seiyu other than the standard database on TV websites. So far nobody has cited a single source online or offline which actually writes about this seiyu, other than an contentless databases entries on TV sites with nothing but a birthdate and filmography. If these people are not considered worthy of writing articles about in favour of writing about the actual anime series instead, why I ask do we need to have biographies about them if nobody else does? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Has acted in a leading role in multiple notable anime productions, which per WP:ENTERTAINER makes her putatively notable. Even if we never find additional biographical information about her, she would still be notable for those achievements. If we ever find the right otaku's stash of moldering voice actor magazines from the times when she was most active, then we'll be on the way to getting past a stub of an article. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are people making such a big deal about this? This person is well sourced and has multi roles and such. Either there is WP:COI here or something is going on for someone to be making huge paragraphs on why this should be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography citations to sites like this which do not have extensive coverage of this individual anyway is enough to make this nomination valid. No website on the Internet writes about this person, why should we? The article needs more than verification it needs sources to write a solid article and claim notability of this individual with more than just a list. Still nobody has found me extensive coverage of this person. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. Their body of work is what makes this person notable, any "extensive coverage" would just be trivial biographical information no one cares about and redundant listings of the things they were in. This article is here because there's literally no reason for it not to be. Oh yeah, and it passes Wikipedia's silly little inclusion rules for entertainers too. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh LOL "any "extensive coverage" would just be trivial biographical information no one cares about and redundant listings of the things they were in". My thoughts exactly. So why do we need trivial biographical information. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia nobody cares about. Frankly anybody who declares that "This user rejects using notability as an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia" I cannot take even remotely seriously. The decision of notability is the most important decision an encyclopedia has to make. Without any rough guide to notability would allow us to write any Tom Dick or Harry or the local tramp or taxi driver. You might turn around and say, well I wouldn't go that far as to have a encyclopedia article about the local tramp, meaning however much you declare the otherwise, you still have your own notability requirements and biases as anybody else. If you do think it would be feasible to write about the local tramp or any one of the 6 billion people on the planet and that any walking human, local fisherman, blacksmiths, how about the local mechanic in the garage, postman, milkman who delivers milk to my mummy every day then that is the only way your claims would be true. Somewhere somebody has to draw the line and say this is notable, that is not. If you think that it would be "stupid" to have an article on the local milkman, then you are making your own decision and subconciously saying, "he's not notable". So notability is always a determining factor. However, people are different, they have different perceptions of what is appropriate for wikipedia and what is not, there are millions of articles we could reasonably have articles on, like Miriam the Bunny Killer from Oregon etc but everytime to community has to make an overall decision of notability (the community voted to delete that article despite extensive coverage actually as the majority believed writing about a mentally ill woman who killed rabbits and stored them in the fridge was not appropriate). From a personal viewpoint this article may very well be notable to some people, but not to others but in order to write articles (as opposed to an imdb type list) without WP:OR we require an abundance of sources to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia article, so sources are important. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your "rant" is completely off-base and your straw men have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. Having significant coverage by reliable third-party sources is not the only guideline we have for inclusion. There are others depending on the subject area. In this case, there is WP:BIO and specifically WP:ENT. So long as a subject meets any one of the criteria, the subject is presumed notable and may have an article. This subject passes WP:ENT criteria #1 for having several significant roles in multiple notable televisions series. If passing WP:NOTE is required for all biographies, then there is no need for WP:BIO and you should open an RfC to have it demoted as a guideline. But so long at it is a guideline, I and other editors will continue to use it to determine if a biography should be included. —Farix (t | c) 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well now that that's settled, let's address this laughable notion of "no notability is equal to the apocalypse" so this sort of thing doesn't happen again. N is a big part of Wikipedia, it's a essentially a written unwritten rule, which tries to put down on paper a shared thought of every half-serious editor. Before N, there were few to no articles about "every Tom, Dick and Harry", or the color of my friend's mother's toenails, or the quilt she made last Christmas. The worse WP had before N-azis came into power were mass articles on fictional characters and tons of lists of trivial fictional stuff, along with maybe some unnotable indie bands, video games and etc. Those articles existed because the broader community willed it to be so, whereas the article on James Simmons, the school bully of the 1992 Juneau middle school class, was deemed stupid and was deleted. No policy was needed in that situation. Notability as a concept isn't really subjective in the minds of most people, and when disputes did come up the community resolved it. A perfect system. But I guess somewhere along the way we needed a proper written definition, and this is what we ended up with: A conflict-causing and arbitrary rule trying to define a thought that varies from person to person. In concept, that's not too bad of an idea, every site needs rules after all, but in execution it's really just an exclusionist tool. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I don't like the way certain rules are bent and how many double standards there are across the site either. And yes at times the "Nazi rules"do get very irritating and often hypocritical. And I'm glad to hear you are reasonable about what is included in an encyclopedia. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 23:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources about the subject have been found, only trivial mentions in the context of her work. Wikipedia works from sources if the sources don't exist to create a biography article then we shouldn't have one. If the only coverage about her is listing her voice-over work that can be covered in the credits of the productions. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm sympathetic to the argument that contemporary periodicals would cover her sufficiently to pass WP:N, but as it stands, it's a list of 2-bit roles, none apparently of any significance per WP:ENTERTAINER - the only anime I recognize immediately is Case Closed where she's a 2-episode temporary character; nor do I see anything impressive on the English web: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Runa+Akiyama%22 --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 12 February 2010 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of sources found and content which now asserts notability. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chieko Higuchi

edit
Chieko Higuchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable biography. Lacks sources which indicate real significance of this person. I don't see it as a vitally important article. Besides it says practically nothing about the career but cites a conflict they encountered in NYC. This to me is not notable. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three of those roles (in Amaenaideyo!!, To Heart, and Azumanga Daioh) are lead roles, which cna be readily sourced. For the last, I've even seen reviews commenting on the character's voice acting. That would seem to be enough to make her pass WP:ENTERTAINER, and so keep. Whether to include the poorly sourced incident is an editorial decision. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Mount Fuji a lake? What do you think? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...what? Now you're making no sense at all. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her filmography shows that she has voices several major characters in several notable television series, films, and an OVA, so she passes WP:ENTERTAINER with no problems what so ever. A voice actor/actress with such credentials are usually covered by one of the many Japanese voice acting magazine. Unfortunately, these magazines aren't easily accessible outside of Japan. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote I'm just here to slap trout some editors who sucked at sourcing & assessing article whatever Excellent they are elsewhere they sucked here. Get serious people whatever it Keep or Delete try to get a full picture of the situation before casting a vote. AfD is more a Big Deal than giving admin tools so "Bureaucratic Handling" of case based on article misleading appearance, cultural bias, ethnic bias, religious bias, sexual orientation bias, political bias, high & low culture assumption bias and others i like it or not is not acceptable. Get serious or don't vote. --KrebMarkt 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whom or what exactly are you referring to? I don't follow. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not you. You did what you felt right and acted by the book which is worth respect and appreciation. You should remain oblivious on the ins and outs of my "No vote" unless you want to taste bitterness. --KrebMarkt 14:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trout slap, what for thinking that 1100 articles on Japanese seiyu, mostly short unreferenced stubs with nothing but a bunch of anime lists and few solid reliable encyclopedia articles on the web are a pile of crap? You trout slap editors for making obviously incorrect proposals, just like the editor who proposed deleting all of the BLPs even articles like Roberta Flack. I resent your remark. If these articles are so notable, why can't anybody actually write anything about them? KrebMarkt has explained to me the reasons that there are few editors working on them which I understand and symphasise with but the fact is nobody is even trying to write about these people. People are swarming to keep this but are unwilling to actually write anything decent about it. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are no WP:DEADLINEs. Simply because an article is a stub and has been a stub for a while doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Instead, they should be expanded. However, other editors have already explained the language hurtals that slows the development of these types of articles. Also, you didn't do a good job, if any, at checking if the voice actors would passed WP:ENT. If a subject can pass any of the notability guidelines, than the subject may have an article on it. If you can't assess if these groups of articles pass the notability guidelines, then you shouldn't be nominating them for deletion. And finally, if you want something fixed, fix it yourself instead of complaining that other editors aren't working on the problems. Your complaining doesn't help anything and makes you look like a whiner. —Farix (t | c) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DEADLINE is a pathetic excuse to justify contentless unreferenced BLPs. I am whining , I think the fact that 36 year old men who want an encyclopedia to be plagued with thousands of articles about kids cartoons, especially without solid sources and information is the more embarrassing. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is references, then search for them. Most VAs have profiles form their agencies, which is the best place to start. After that, check the official websites of their most recent performances and work backwards. The fact that you are complaining about articles on "kids cartoons", even when those articles pass the notability guidelines, and calling it "embarrassing" shows your bias against this particular subject area. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I did Farix. I googled this person in english and Japanese and could not find any decent sources other than fan blogs or dubious anime websites. These are not traditional encyclopedic sources. Notability is determined by extensive coverage in reliable sources and publications. Where is the widespread coverage of these people in mainstream Japanese newspapers and magazines other than specialist material related to anime and manga? I failed to to find any such sources, and the fact that even now nobody can even string a few encyclopedic sentences together about this person indicates to me that there is little to write about the actual biography. We are not imdb and just list appearances/credits of a person. As for showing bias against cartoons, I support the actual articles on a manga series or cartoon. Where I draw the line is that fan crufters think it is appropriate to have an article on every Pokemon charatcer and fictional charatcer in these series, an article about every video game developer or designer and articles about any voice actor who ever provided a voice to any series, regardless of whether the character was minor or barely appeared onscreen. If you are interested in anime, that's cool with me if that is your interest, but I do not think an encyclopedia is the place for overindulgence on articles related to popular culture if no solid sources can be found. All I'm saying is that when you mention wikipedia to many professionals and scholars they roll their eyes at our coverage of kids topics and believe it reflects a great deal about the age of our users and wrongly think the entire encyclopedia is only compiled by kids and distrust it as a credible site. To me, if I came across this article in a random search and the only information I see is "She is in the two-person group "Whoops!!" with Maaya Sakamoto and a list of titles this information appears as very trivial and unencyclopedic. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note I am not opposed in general to having articles about voice actors. As with actors I think many of them are notable and have widespread coverage in books and mainstream magazines and can have decent encyclopedic articles written about them. My concern above all is the lack of reliable solid publications that widely discuss people such as Chieko Higuchi other than fan blogs and fan sites. I spot one tiny mention in a credible book about anime. No other hits. No coverage in google news either. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how easy it was to find a few references (her agency profile was already linked in the article), I seriously doubt you did a good search. And there is more than one bar for inclusion than just WP:NOTE. To quote the three criteria from WP:ENT: "[The subject] has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", "has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Higuchi clearly meets the first criteria, so all that is left is the matter of sourcing. But also, the current state of a biography is not a reason to deleted. It is a reason to fix it. If you can't fix it, then ask others if they can fix it. But don't waste everyone else's time on a pointless AfD. —Farix (t | c) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was written like Maaya Sakamoto and claimed notability with some decent inline text references and information I probably would not have nominated this. There are no other hits in google books. Covergae in reliable book sources are always a good indicator of notability. This is lacking, severely in this department. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Japanese-language entertainment-related books are not covered well on Google Books, so that's a poor indicator to use when determining if the person is notable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but there should be numerous reliable publications covering her online, evne mainstream Japanese newspapers/magazines. Please cite me 5-10 reliable solid publications that could be used to write this article Nippon Joe. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that is required is that the contents of the article is sourced and that the subject passes one or more of the notability guidelines. The sourcing has been fixed, thanks largely to KrebMarkt (talk · contribs), and the article now shows that the subject passes WP:BK, that is as far as we need to go for this AfD. Everything else can be fixed later as there are no WP:DEADLINEs. —Farix (t | c) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were familiar with this topic area, you would know that online copies of newspaper articles is still quite rare in Japan. Online copies of magazine articles is even more rare. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with this topic area, you're right. Japan seems to be world leader in most things technical! You'd expect them to have decent online content about these people. Actually in looking hard at her roles, I can see how this voice artist might be considered notable by fans of the various series. I've tried to make the article look half decent, thanks to sources found by Kreb. I did find some reliable books about some of the series she has voiced in which is now along the right track. But there are far too many articles on here about such subjects which do not assert their notability. A massive cleanup/improvement job is needed if your articles are to be taken seriously. Nomination withdrawn ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would expect that, but you would be disappointed. Japan is several years behind the United States when it comes to utilizing the internet for things such as that. I recommend noting your withdrawal at the top of the nomination as well. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to rant at you all but I really think the current state of many of the related articles is not a true testament to how notable they are. It is very frustrating to go through categories with thousands of articles and find one liners with a list and no solid sources. To the casual eye and with a google search which turns up a lot of fan sites rather than credible publications you'd expect leaves a poor impression in my mind. Given the following of anime-manga I'd really like to see more decently written articles about them, less in universe details and an attention to reliable sourcing to improve their credibility. I hope the project will recruit more people and work hard at improving the quality and asserting notability of this topic in the future so it rises above a lot of other popular culture related content we have on here. Regards ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 19:28, 7 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yan saquet

edit
Yan saquet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced autobiography. Not clear how this person might meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 18:12, 5 February 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 I Look to You and protect the redirect for a week. By that time the single should have been released, and if the article gets recreated there should be some indication whether it is going to chart and become independently notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth It (song)

edit
Worth It (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rather than attempt a fourth redirect of this non notable single to its parent album, I am recommending it for deletion. It hasn't even been released yet, let alone achieved chart success. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinola

edit
Chinola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:NOT a dictionary for slang terms. This article has been identified as unreferenced back in 2007 and there is nothing worth salvaging here. JBsupreme (talk) 17:51, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbiball71

edit
Bumbiball71 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find evidence of notability for this game. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:36, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Checkler

edit
Joseph Checkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable blogger and journalist. Can't find any sources which indidcate real significance of this person not to mention unreferenced BLP. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that old nomination was actually closed as a keep. Based on very little all around I think... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:34, 5 February 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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Cliffe

edit
Louise Cliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability: I'm not sure whether Miss Manchester and Miss Maxim count as notable awards - neither of them have articles. One film credit doesn't qualify as a notable actor. RoadieRich (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Except for IMDB most of the sources to be found are self-promotional or comments on her modeling shots. My vote is "weak" because like the nominator I see the notability as questionable. She has been in a possibly notable film, and the fact that her non-acting (i.e. modeling) has gained fans and notice in places like AskMen indicates that she might be close to meeting #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER. But I don't think she's quite notable yet. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in Daily Star and Manchester Evening News satisfy WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 16:12, 5 February 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. The consensus below is that this page as it currently stands is a POV fork of such legitimate articles as Pederasty in ancient Greece and Homosexuality in Ancient Rome. As such it is appropriately deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity

edit
Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article claims to be about "pederastic relationships" but in fact is filled with original research involving adult gay relationships, the ass-raping of slave boys, poets who wrote admiringly about the beauty of boys, etc... It's largely unsupported by the claimed sources. It was created by a now-banned editor who had a pretty obvious pro-pedophila agenda (they like to call themselves "pederasts") who has been shown, time and again, to be lying and distorting sources. It's also a fork from Pederasty in ancient Greece. It's embarrassing that it took six years for wikipedia to start to grapple with the falsehoods liberally distributed throughout the encyclopedia by an editor with a rather creepy agenda. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments at Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination): I am satisified the main contributor cannot be relied upon to have edited this article from a neutral point of view. Yes, it could be fixed by editing, but there are so many references that would need checking in hard copy that I feel the encyclopedia would best be improved by deletion, followed by possibly starting again if there is found to be enough genuine content that can't fit in one of the many other pederasty articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is useful information. If there's stuff that doesn't belong remove it. This is a well-documented and discrete subject. I voted delete on the "historical" POV because it was a mishmash with an agenda, this isn't (Well there may be an agenda in the creator's fancy, but the topic can be delt with neutraly. Pedophillia is repulsive - but antiquite (and Greece in particular) was more ambivillent about it. We don't want to go too far in censoring because of modern sentiments.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Delete as unsalvegable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 04:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the working definition of "pederast" and "relationship" for this article that is reflected in an academic/historical consensus? Who do you propose fix this?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that this article doesn't use a consistent, accepted definition of pederasty, I'd suggest looking up the entry on pederasty in the Oxford Classical Dictionary and modifying this article according to whatever it describes as the scholarly consensus (I assume you're aware that there is, in fact, a ton of respectable scholarship on this topic). I'd work on it myself but I don't currently have access to the OCD or other reliable sources. As for Pontificalibus' comment on the difficulty of checking hard-copy references, I see a lot of primary sources in that reference list, most of which are probably available online; more importantly, "it's hard to check references that aren't online" seems like a pretty questionable basis for deleting an article.
Ideally, we could move this article's content to the talk pages of other articles (e.g., Pederasty in ancient Greece) for consideration and possible inclusion, but I'm not aware of any other articles that would cover the stuff on Rome. Jd4v15 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, delete as failing WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. I looked into a few of the sources for the "Roman Empire" section, and while I didn't find anything as egregious as what Jack-a-Roe mentions below, they all seemed to be "X was fond of a particular young male slave." Making the leap from that to actual pederasty isn't necessarily wrong, but to make it over and over again on the flimsiest of evidence with little or no support from scholarship amounts to agenda-driven original research. Jd4v15 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Fails WP:V. There are lots of footnotes, but the problem is that the person who added most of them is known to have misrepresented sources repeatedly. That means that for any of the sources to be used, they have to be checked. To leave those footnotes in place without verifying them is to present a false impression that the sources support the text, and there is no basis for that in this situation.
Here is one example that I found just now -- the text from the article reads:
The "Capernaum centurion" and the "Beloved pais" -- The couple entered history as a result of the Centurion's request, around 27 CE, to Jesus to heal his beloved, who was close to death. As the story goes, Jesus complied and the boy was healed. Loving relationships between Roman soldiers and their camp boys were common.
Here is one of the footnotes used to support that text: The Bible, Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. The Bible is easy to verify, here are links to those two sections: [31] [32]. Those passages are the well-known story of the Centurian with great faith whose servent is healed by Jesus. Neither of those passages says anything about the servent being a "beloved" of the Centurian or about relationships of Roman soldiers and camp boys.
That's just one example. There are 217 footnotes, many to vaguely identified sources often with no page numbers or publishers listed. It's possible that an article on this topic could be useful, but because the main author of the article is known to misquote sources, without verification, the sources can not be considered reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:14, 7 February 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 deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs); reason was "Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement." Non-admin closure by nom. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka

edit
Ramayana sites in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article that reads like a travel guide/advertisement targeted at Hindus making a pilgrimage to Sri Lanka. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Nvvchar or Redtiger who are good with Hindu sites or Chanakal. I think it has potential.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a delete and then start from scratch then if somebody is interested in doing so? I think it has potential, but copy vios must be deleted from the system anyway..

Yes the entire article is a copy vio. This is now speediable. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 01:23, 6 February 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. NW (Talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

edit
List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply original research and a synthesis of a number of facets of moves. By accident or design it tends to portray paedophilia as a manistream subject. (American Beauty is on thie list). References are dire and the list is either a coatrack, fork or otherwise unsuitable.

It appears to have been deleted by a previous afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring pedophilia. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point of Procedure - Are you nominating all four articles for deletion? Or just the one? There's probably a case both ways, but it's worth spelling out here as well. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently we have Category:Films with a pedophile theme and Category:Pederastic films. it is not clear how this list would be different in scope. If the idea is that each item in the list would be annotated, what sort of secondary sources would be available for the annotations? (Notice that many of the annotations do not have citations in the current list.) I am not an expert in this area, but I can see all sorts of red flags and quality control problems. Racepacket (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be surprising if no books from major publishers or articles in reliable sources have listed films depicting sexual abuse of minors or pedophilia. See "The porning of America: the rise of porn culture, what it means, and where" Beacon Press, 2008, which discusses "Pretty Baby," "Lolita," and "Blame it in Rio." Would it be objectionable to have a list if the entries were well sourced, or is the objection just one of not thinking such a list should appear in an encyclopedia, because it promotes such films or acts as a shoppers guide for pedophiles? If reviews of some film published in the mainstream press state that a minor was the victim of sexual abuse, such as a New York Times review of "'Pretty Baby" which states the film had 12 year old Brook Shields playing a child prostitute whose virginity was auctioned off, would that satisfy the objection to original research, or does the community feel it is still O.R. that the depiction was "sexual abuse?" It should be easy to find newspaper or magazines with reviews of "Taxi Driver" stating that Jodie Foster played a child prostitute, or reviews of other films stating that they depict a child who gets raped or is a victim of incest while a minor. The nomination smacks of "IDONTLIKEIT!" I tend to object to lists where Wikipedia editors make some determination based on their personal value system (fat people, silly movies, ugly buildings, military blunders) but to allow lists with reliable sources stating that each list member qualifies. Edison (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an article discussing child sexuality in film, using sources that discuss that topic (if they do) would be fine. A list, however, of "Hey I saw this movie and it had a kid in it and ...." is original research and a synth. Sure, you might find a source which says this depicts abuse, but that's just an opinion of a source. The topic is too broad and too open to interpretation. Does American Beauty portray paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors? That's open to interpretation. Further, what does "portraying" mean? Does it mean referencing or focusing on? What isthe value of putting Lolita on the same list as Platoon (on the basis that the later referenced a child-rape among several thousand other atrocities? (Please AGF, and don't hit me with IDON'TLIKEIT. Accusations contribute nothing to the debate.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no reliable sources list "American Beauty" as qualifying for some list, then editing is the correct response, rather than deletion of a list with reliable sources for other members. A list could be tightened to mainstream films depicting rape of minors, child prostitution, incest of adults and minors, or sexual relationships between adults and minors. Those themes have been major ones in many well known films, explaining why some characters are motivated to run around doing whatever they do in the film. It would appear pretty easy to reference the qualification for such a list of many of the entries on the list, based on film reviews by well regarded critics, or books about modern film making. Unreferenced user entries can be deleted. As for IDONTLIKEIT, what remains if a list is well defined and entries are referenced? I raised the question of whether we as a community, simply do not want such a list because of it possibly serving as a shopper's guide for something we judge to be harmful, sexual interest in children.Edison (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll find one source discussing or labelling just about anything as anything - that will not indicate that the film is generally regarded as being about this, or even that anyone other than that one source would agree. You raised the "shopper's guide" not me, see strawman.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination states that it was previously deleted by an AFD. Apparently, it was only a technical deletion as a duplication. Was the actual content and both articles deleted by the AFD, or was an article and a redirect left? And I do not agree with the broad claim that one can find a reliable source "labelling just about anything as anything." That claim rejects the applicability of WP:RS and WP:V. Edison (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. Because with most article we can say "according to commentator x, however, y states" and we can record the opinion given in the sources. However, lists have the problem of being binary. Either something gets on it, or doesn't. So we are deciding that film x is about subject y, on the basis that some reviewer discussed the two things. As I say, this would be much better handeled as an article on the subject which can record a veriety of analysis and sources, not a list we synthesise from subjective opinions of wikipedians or the odd source. I bet I can find a source that speaks of sexual abuse in Harry Potter. If I can, can I include it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, find a reliable "source y" which clearly states that "Taxi Driver" does not depict Jodie Foster as a child prostitute, or that "Lolita" does not depict a grown man having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl, or that "Pretty Baby" does not depict a child's defloweration being auctioned off. Edison (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's silly. Of course I can't find that. Proving negatives is not going to happen. But tell me, if I found a source that gave the opinion that some mainstream film depicted sexual abuse of minors, and NO OTHER of the multiple sources avalable even raised the question, can it go on the list? If not, where would you find a source refuting mine? Ultimately much of this will be utterly subjective (read POV).--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list you apparently are nominating List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors references them to Library of Congress subject headings such as "Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse by clergy-Fiction." Is LC also too slippery in "labelling just about anything as anything?" Maybe you should AFD these various articles separately. Edison (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC)KeepList of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors as lists which might need better sourcing, but which are encylopedic and sourceable to reliable sources such as articles about the movies and books, reviews of the articles and books, and Library of Congress subject headings for the books.They can be moved to new titles removing "pedophilia," if you wish. Placing the word so prominently may tend to make it look more mainstream than it is, or to make it look like it is not "sexual abuse of children" when it involves a grown up and a minor. Normal editing can remove "American Beauty" from the list of films if it does not belong. Delete List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors as more subjective and difficult to reference, having millions of possible members of varying degrees of notability, and due to the general vagueness of song lyrics. UndecidedDelete on List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, since it is poorly sourced and only contains a tiny fraction of likely members. Also, the universe of mainstream motion pictures is much smaller and more likely to have reliably sourced reviews than the universe of plays. Anyone can write a play and get it put on by some amateur group somewhere. Edison (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "some reviewer" says that "Peter Pan is about runaway children being buggered by pirates," do you suppose the normal editing process, and WP:UNDUE could keep that statement out of Peter Pan, since its inclusion would place undue weight on the opinion of a nutjob who somehow got published somewhere? Mightn't we also question whether it was published in a reliable source? Edison (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Policy is clear on this, to the effect that when the criteria for inlcusion of a list is controversial or unclear, reliable sources should be used to both construct the list criterian and also to determine whether each individual entry does or does not belong.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all. Lists are obviously encyclopedic and of navigational value. Criteria for inclusion is very simple: iff there is a RS that clearly states the film/song/book/whatever, and there are no sources for the contrary, then include the film/song/book/whatever. If there are pro and against sources, it can be included as "disputed" in a separate section. Else, don't include. I don't see the problem. Scott MacDoc asks: So we are deciding that film x is about subject y, on the basis that some reviewer discussed the two things.. My answer is: yes. (A more articulate answer would take into account the issue of academic consensus, but it's clear anyway). --Cyclopiatalk 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one reliable source quixotically states that a film contains child abuse (and none other discusses it, because it never occurs to them it does - and why would they think it does)? What you then have is "list of thinks one reviewer might once have related to child abuse".--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of WP is (very roughly speaking) made this way: we report what RS say. I'd say also that for most cases, like Lolita, it is quite straightforward. If there are legitimately disputable cases, we can have the allegation explicitly linked to the source, like "Movie X according to Review Y...(ref)", or we can see what is the consensus on the dispute, if any. In most cases should be straightforward (do we have any doubt about what Death in Venice or Lolita talk about?), the fact that a few cases could be debatable are to be discussed and edited, but make no case for deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSee previous comment. If only "one reviewer" claims "Old Yeller,", "True Grit," "National Velvet" or "It's a Wonderful World" is about sexual abuse of a child, and numerous other reviews make no such conclusion, but talk about many other aspects of the film, then the Lone Nutjob's review can be discounted per WP:UNDUE and the film excluded from the list. No such dispute would occur for "Taxi Driver," "Lolita," "Chinatown," Hounddog (film) [39] or "Pretty Baby," or several other mainstream films from the 1980's and after. Sexual abuse of a child, in one form or another, was a major plot element in these. Edison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHey, I don't like it either. Rather than railing at those with different views about what belongs in an encyclopedia, how about stating what part of referenced entries in a list would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR for films with reviews and books stating that their plot is about the subject matter of this list? Per WP:LIST lists are used to organize information. Most of the movies have articles where the sexual content is clearly stated and most of the films which belong in the list can be well referenced as belonging. Even the AFD nominator did not disagree that several important films discussed above qualify for such a list. Each entry in such a list is subject to deletion if it fails verifiability, no original research, undue weight or neutral point of view. Edison (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly user appears to be a sock Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sock of well-known user banned for his advocacy in this area; His advocacy was for the complete opposite POV of the guy that created this list, who has also been banned now. Pcap ping 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also with regards to Bali Ultimate's request for RS (something that many have tagged their delete arguments onto). The list inclusion criteria is not so unclear as to require a deletion of the list. Plenty of sources can easily be found to define "paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors" this is not some wildly made up meaningless inclusion criteria that is in desperate need of sources for people to understand it or agree it can exist. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 12 February 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. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LFU

edit
LFU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be just another Linux variant without sources or much notability, also seems a bit spammy to me.  fetchcomms☛ 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the developers of LFU. I don't think that notability is a proper criteria. This distribution is specially created for use in educational sphere in Bulgaria. In fact, it is already used in some schools, and it has some notability in Bulgaria. Please remove this proposal for deletion. Svetlisashkov (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the notability - I think the distro is notable because it is the first Bulgarian Educational distribution, and it's used in various schools across Bulgaria. Not so many, but enough. It has strong (local) user base. But because it's users are just from one country, does not mean it's not notable. Which part of the article do you find spammy? And why? Loksterr (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No google books hits for Учи свободен с Убунту (its name in Bulgarian), and only a handful of news archive hits [40] practically all on a forum/community-like site. If it's widely used in Bulgarian schools as claimed here, I'd expect some mainstream Bulgarian press coverage. Pcap ping 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when the success of a project is defined by Google books? Also, if You look at the search results more closely, You'll find that LFU is frequently mentioned at the biggest Linux portal in Bulgaria [41], and actually there are hosted some of the previous versions of LFU. LFU is also available for download at one of the most popular download portals in our country [42]. LFU is also regularly announced in one forum, dedicated to education and widely used by teachers [43]. The project has been announced in big bulgarian site for IT news [44]. I really don't understand what is wrong with the article for LFU. We created it for one and only purpose - to be informative. Isn't that one of the goals of every encyclopedia?

77.85.240.145 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  15:17, 5 February 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. May become notable; isn't yet. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guang Jia Quan

edit
Guang Jia Quan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial arts form. Searches turn up only a Facebook group. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So a web search didn't turn up many results? And? Are you a martial arts expert? Do you know all styles that exists? This is not an online-game, but something that exists in the real world. Who are you that you can deny an existing martial art with masters and students training in it? I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style. What do you need to make it notable? Do you need his Sifu-certificate or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panny129 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No, I'm not an expert on martial arts. But Wikipedia has notability standards that must be met in order for a topic to be included. This includes significant coverage of the topic by independent sources. If you can provide references to such sources (such as profiles of this new style in major martial arts magazines), that would help. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too am not a martial arts expert, but I regard myself as something of an expert in Googling. I can find nothing that indicates notability. In fact, I can find little at all. And please take note: "I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style." - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory or free webspace. It is for recording, not promoting. If you want free space, go to aboutus or LinkedIn. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Who are we? We are the regular editors patrolling Wikipedia to keep up its standards. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article shows no notability. It is an new art practiced by very few. It fits the description of things under WPMA/N that are not notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it I don't know what you are waiting for. Our style is non notable and the master, a direct student of Shaolin Monks Shi Su Gang (30. Generation) and Shi De Yu (31. Generation), is non notable too. The approximately 100 students currently training with our Sifu are also just non notable if you compare it to our 6 billion people living on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panny129 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I hope the regular editors patrolling Wikipedia to keep up it standards will get their entries in Wikipedia soon, so that they can finally get their online fame ;) No need to listen to this, or better delete this soon that nobody can read it anymore. Now guys...really...I never thought that Wikipedia or the people who stand behind this are that narrow minded. Encyclopedia's were created to let people know about something that they do not yet know. And you self titled 'regular editors' are taking this chance away from the people because it is in your opinion non-notable. Do you think this is fair? How can you make the decision of what is important for the people and what not? According to what you say it is like if somebody would find a cure for HIV but you guys will delete the entry because it is still new... many HIV infected people are not cured and because it is not yet mentioned on 5 billion websites. Sorry to say but you guys really just try to hide behind some rules and regulations even so it is stated in most cases that a rule can but must not apply. The stuff you do is a bad testimonial and discredits wikipedia as a free open encyclopedia. Of course the things I just wrote are not important because I just opened this account today. Yes I am another student of Guang Jia Quan and I just needed to say what my fellow students think about this and about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisChan92 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Instead of invective, how about references? This IS an encyclopaedia, not a directory or a site like aboutus which provides space for promoting something. A cure for HIV? If it's real, you can bet your bottom currency unit that there'll be plenty of very reliable sources as soon as it is confirmed to work. Whether I have a Wikipedia entry or not is irrelevant (and as I maintain anonymity, I ain't saying, but if no-one else thought to post it, I wouldn't do it myself). I repeat the quote from above: "I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style." To me, that's advertising. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 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. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lindholm

edit
Philip Lindholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer/actor/whatever. His imdb page doesn't show any notability as far as actors is concerned, and other than that, he doesn't seem to be notable for any other reasons. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems like he's done a lot of stuff, and it seems legit. How old is he?

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

I disagree. I saw him on that Da Vinci Code documentary and he was great!

The above editor is the same editor that made edits like this in the article. Woogee (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Philip give a lecture at Oxford a couple years ago on media and culture. He was really great. I think he deserves an entry here as a lecturer, and I can't wait to hear his record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.232.106 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC) — 78.86.232.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Weak keep Keep He did have the lead in a BBC TV movie; that might qualify him as notable. Everything else is minor - technical credits, "upcoming" books, etc. - and does not qualify him as notable. In any case the article (if kept) needs to be seriously rewritten to become encyclopedic instead of boosterish, and the unsourced brags need to be removed. (By the way, anonymous comments along the lines of "he was great!" have no impact here. Notability needs to be established by independent, mainstream reporting.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I don't know much about Wikipedia policies, but Dr. Lindholm is one of my professors here at Oxford and is notable in the field of Kierkegaardian studies, if I may speak to his academic side. I think his article should not be deleted, for whatever that is worth, particularly since I have not edited a Wikipedia article before (and don't really plan to in the future). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.89.19 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have changed my vote to "keep" based on the academic credentials verified at the site. I originally wondered if the academic stuff might refer to a different Philip Lindholm, since the article is mostly about his entertainment career, and the picture shows a very young man. But following the academic links there is a picture of the same man, and the links indicate that he does present at scholarly conferences. Google search describes him as an adjunct tutor (not exactly a professor, but still) at Oxford. That post in itself would not make him notable, but the combination of television actor/academic makes him much more interesting. We could add author to the list, since I see he contributed a chapter (about Kierkegaard) to Metallica and philosophy: a crash course in brain surgery by William Irwin.[45] --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
What makes those credentials noteworthy, and what makes his acting credits noteworthy? Woogee (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a singer, songwriter, who had the lead in a nationally aired BBC movie, presented another nationally aired ITV programme, and now teaches about Kierkegaard in Oxford? If that's all true, he's clearly notable. That's not your average singer songwriter. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'lecturer at Oxford' might be a bit misleading. He is a guest lecturer for the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, which is affiliated to Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. As such he's not an Oxford University lecturer. It appears that he is completing a PHD on Kierkegaard, but I am not sure what his lectures involve. The BBC programme seems to be described here - doesn't look like a nationally broadcast movie. I can't find out much about "In Pursuit of The Da Vinci Code", but I think he was one of three people who interviewed people for the programme (the main presenter/narrator being Caroline Quentin. That does appear to have been shown nationally. He could well have been the creator of "The Muslim Jesus" but sources talking about the programme don't seem to mention him (e.g. this). The references for his music don't look like the best sources, but there might be something in it. Overall, he is clearly a very busy chap, and perhaps hovers around the fuzzy line of notability. Ultimately we could really do with some better sources, because at the moment there don't seem to be any that jump out as being particularly good. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 5 February 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. and then redirect to Direct democracy. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Democracy

edit
Direct Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the PROD-tag which was removed without explanation or improvement to the article earlier this week ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that PROD rationale was, in relevant part, "This group's existence... is only backed up by a dead link to a newspaper website." The PRODding editor also notes that a list of members of the organization was deleted per BLP. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:52, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaviri Mainthan

edit
Kaviri Mainthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BOOK. can't find Tamil or English reliable sources to reference it. Sodabottle (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Spiff, the Dinamalar books page is a user submitted one. They wanted to build a database of books and were lazy enough not to build a proper catalogue, so they invited publishers, authors and general users to make submissions. A lot of self published books have made it into the list through here [47].--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 9 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anusha Venkatesh

edit
Anusha Venkatesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:AUTH. Relatively new author with no independent coverage in secondary sources (both Tamil and English)- Sodabottle (talk) 13:16, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Nation

edit
Sunset Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fullmetalrock has just a link to the band's MySpace, the others are fansites. If you can find anything significant in newspapers, print magazines, or professional websites, this would help to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage found in this static multimedia article here. And here in the LA times. Another in the OC Register. More on Euro News —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcrik7 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether Static Multimedia would be considered a reliable source, and again it just discusses the same one (non-)event. Others are just listings. Any live/record reviews, etc.? We need examples where people have written significantly about the band.--Michig (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a record review. News coverage should be more than significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcrik7 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Jimcrik7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Oppose. Subject has seen coverage by the mainstream media, making it a notable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepacecho (talk • contribs) — Mikepacecho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. I think the coverage presented seems reasonable. MikeyJames15 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — MikeyJames15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep this article. Subject has generated coverage from a reliable sources (News) as per the criteria at WP:BAND. TeamWorm (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — TeamWorm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep. Satisfies the criteria at WP:MUSIC and has reliable sources. KingHammer (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)— KingHammer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Allow. Seems to passWP:MUSIC. UtopiaGod (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)— UtopiaGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Michael Clarke (ornithologist)

edit
Michael Clarke (ornithologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, WP:SCHOLAR, gscholar, WP:AUTHOR gbooks. also see gnews. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 5 February 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 in light of sources found. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bsous Silk Museum

edit
Bsous Silk Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. 1 hit in gnews. unless something can be found in Arabic it should go. LibStar (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look at the link I provided, I used google news. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources in Arabic: [48][49] (translated w Google Translate) and one more source in English[50]. The museum's official website looks pretty official FWIW. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 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. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMPx

edit
BMPx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably non-notable audio player. Article is mostly a bunch of trivia concerning development plans and website hosting issues; no independent third-party sources. I can't find any published reviews of the software from reliable sources. I'd suggest merging this article into Beep Media Player but I'm not sure even that player is notable. Psychonaut (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, project was confirmed abandoned in favour of the Youki project, so it is therefore non-notable. iPatrickQuinn (Talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  09:04, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxs64

edit
Hoxs64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've added references to a couple of other C64 emulators, but this one does not appear notable. Only mentioned in a list here. Pcap ping 09:01, 5 February 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City bus service no. 1 (Ljubljana)

edit
City bus service no. 1 (Ljubljana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about, well, a city bus line. Not notable (IMO) Dr Gangrene (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of all LPP bus lines was allready created on main page. --Triglav 2000 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nom only indicates this article should be deleted because they don't think bus routes are notable ("Article about, well, a city bus line. Not notable"). But in fact, many bus routes are notable. In London alone, there are many bus route articles. Deleting one of the major route articles in a capital city that is non-English speaking might appear as a case of systemic bias. If there are 10 million rides on this route per year (I don't think 10 million different passengers is possible in a city of only about 550,000), most certainly sources exist in Slovene.--Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course, a summarizing article would be great, but we should also have a separate article for each of the routes and number 1 is one of the most used in Ljubljana. These are major routes in a capital city and there are enough of reliable sources (in English or Slovene) to write decent articles about every one of them. There are different aspects to be written about: their course, history, economic importance, cultural significance etc. --Eleassar my talk 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about a notable subject. User:Lucifero4
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing Operating Performance

edit
Indexing Operating Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed the page on 22 January when I noted, "Per Talk:Indexing Operating Performance, the page was created by 'the academic creator of this concept' citing his own primary sources. It is therefore at best a conflict of interest and at worst original research. There are only two papers indexed by Google Scholar that use the term, both authored by the creator of this Wikipedia page, Hermann Stern. Therefore, the topic does not appear to be notable as defined by Wikipedia guidelines."

User:Patrick Stähler expressed objections to deletion on the talk page. I therefore removed the PROD, since deletion is not non-controversial.

Stähler argues, "It is true that the concept is by Stern, but on Wikipedia we find many other concepts that are also concepts by one company like Economic_value_added. With EVA nobody complained that EVA is even a trademark of the Stern Stewart & Co (not related to Herman Stern)."

I still recommend deletion, as I can find only the two papers by Stern, mentioned above, in which the concept is discussed. A web search finds at least one company that recommends Indexing Operating Performance as a management strategy. Note, though, that the company in question, Obermatt, lists Hermann Stern as its CEO. Cnilep (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening up the discussion and taking the pressure out to put more fact to the table. I miss my second argument that goes like this: The second reason is that the topic is important in the current discussion about fair salaries. And the method described in this article is not a one person show but is being adopted by proxy advisors like Manifest – The Proxy Voting Agency, a UK agency that gives advice to shareholders how to vote. http://blog.manifest.co.uk/2009/12/2647.html And we will see in the upcoming shareholder meetings season quite often the argumentation that the bonuses are not justified because the company did not outperform its operating index. Well, and it would help if we can check than on Wikipedia what this method is all about. And the largest German group of private investors is also using the method to check the justification of managers bonuses. http://www.dsw-info.de/DSW-kooperiert-mit-Obermatt-be.1613.0.html#c3135 And therefore this method will gain popularity. Should we not have then the topic in wikipedia as well? I still recommend retention of the article.

Looking forward to the discussion.

--Patrick Stähler (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Cliff Weight, Director, MM&K

There are dozens of articles in German which give validity to this posting. go to http://www.obermatt.com/publikationen I think this article should not be deleted. Cliff Weight 1 Feb 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffweight (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — Cliffweight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per lack of independent WP:RS about it. I checked about half of the /publikationen link, and every one was by Hermann Stern and/or Obermatt, which is intimately related to him. The problem isn't lack of evidence that he is publishing about it and makes a case that it is important, it's lack of evidence that anyone else seems to care enough about it to do so--that's what WP:N is all about. I only barely read German, so perhaps someone who does can provide two or three specific refs that are by unaffiliated authors that discuss this specific topic, that would be useful and I'd be willing to look and perhaps change my !vote. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stern added these references to the article talk page:
I can confirm that they talk about Stern and his method, though not using the actual name of this article (they talk about a bonus index). One calls him a remuneration expert. They may be based on interviews with Stern. --Boson (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first appears to talk about indexing pay against company's own performance but not really company's performance vs competitors. Second's does appear to be on-topic, primarily as quotes from Stern. That's a start, but will need to read further later to find if someone somewhere is actually saying something in detail. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first article, from the VDI, has the following in the last paragraph (Page 2):

Als Lösung aus diesem Dilemma schlägt Stern eine Art von Olympia-Modell vor: Nicht der Sprinter mit der schnellsten Zeit siegt, sondern jener, der alle anderen abhängt. Auf die Wirtschaft übertragen, bedeutet dieses Modell, dass der Bonus des Chefs umso höher ausfällt, je mehr Konkurrenten er mit seinem Unternehmen langfristig überflügelt hat.

roughly

As a solution to this dilemma, Stern proposes a sort of Olympics model: not the sprinter with the best time wins but the one who leaves all the others behind. Transposed to the economy, this model means that the boss's bonus is higher, the more competitors he and his company have done better than in the long term.

--Boson (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Sarah Wilson, CEO, Manifest First my declaration of conflict of interest: Manifest has adopted the Obermatt Bonus index in its methodology for analysing executive pay. Notwithstanding our commercial interest in the work of Obermatt, I wish to offer some perspectives about shareholder involvement in executive pay and reward setting in the context of high-quality global news reproting on executive pay.We contend that the Obermatt material should be retained within Wikipedia as it is making a valuable contribution to an issue which is vexing global financial markets, regulators and governments.

The Social Science Research Network in brim full of peer reviewed artciles analysing inapproproate executive reward and the deleterious impact on shareholder returns. To say that a novel and innovative approach to better measuring the appropriateness of executive reward is not notable seems to be missing the point. Excessive executive pay is highly notable with articles in the mainstream English-language news sites, The FT, The Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Reuters etc. See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/executive-pay-bonuses and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b6f2a5e-1146-11df-a6d6-00144feab49a.html

Financial News, part of the Wall Street Journal family also found it notable that Manifest would be adopting the Obermatt Index in its work: http://www.efinancialnews.com/archive/keyword/obermatt/1/content/1055968080 http://www.efinancialnews.com/assetmanagement/pensionfunds/content/1056158762

Reuters, a news organisation famed for its independence and neutrality in reporting, has followed the Novartis/Manifest/Obermatt analysis at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6101OW20100203 which in turn has been picked by by Alacra http://pulse.alacra.com/analyst-comments/Novartis_AG-C1014770

Hugo Dixon of Breaking Views (part of the Reuters family of web journals) has highlighted that the Chairmen of US and UK banks is asking for Presidential and UK government intervention in bank bonus setting:

http://www.breakingviews.com/2010/02/03/Bonuses.aspx?sg=FreemailUS&uid=69928&secid=na&date=04022010T1040

Bonus payments are also a significant feature of the "Say on Pay" debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_on_pay

Therefore the argument that executive bonuses (and their associated measurement/shareholder) is not a notable issue cannot be justified.

We agree that the Obermatt approach is a new and it is also outside the academic mainstream (at present, it is therefore unlikely to achieve the same type of peer review as if it had been developed withing an academic institution. Nevertheless, that Wikipedia allows an entry for RiskMetrics and its risk model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RiskMetrics, the entry for which contains RiskMetrics' own documentation would seem to suggest that it is acceptable for the creators of new methodologies to post their ideas and self-refer.

My apologies if I have not kept within Wikipedia guidelines for discussion, while a heavy user of the site for refernce, this is my first posting.

Manifestinform (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First, this would appear to be a variation on benchmarking, whose claimed difference is in a more indefinite and vaguer set of data sources for comparison:

    Different from benchmarking, indexing operating performance uses an investor perspective to select peers for performance measurement. Classical benchmarking focuses only on peer companies with similar products or similar operating processes. Indexing uses an extended peer universe that includes companies that can be considered alternative investment opportunities from the perspective of an investor. This will include companies with similar distribution and purchasing processes which are subject to similar operating risks from an investor perspective.

    This would make this article a content fork. Second, per DMacks's analysis of the sources, and the comments taking a predictable tack, this would appear to be a case of conflict of interest, likely to intended to promote a consulting business or business model. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although there may be issues of COI and self-promotion, I think notability is (marginally) supported by fairly reliable German language sources. However, I don't think we need six separate articles about different parts of the same topic; so I propose merging:
If this article does not survive the deletion debate, the other articles should also be proposed for deletion.--Boson (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no evidence of notability. The whole premise of this theory relies on one book that is the primary source. What is need is signficant coverage from reliable secondary soruces that are indpendent of the theory's creators and promoters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 12 February 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 Userfy without prejudice to recreation in due course. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed Connections (film)

edit
Missed Connections (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate further discussion. GedUK  08:28, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narbot

edit
Narbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If I had had an option to tag it under CSD, I would have preferred that. Not notable, no references worth mentioning. Request AfD. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 07:37, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNBT

edit
BNBT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Less than notable software application, fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 5 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Jaggi

edit
Rohit Jaggi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete because he fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). He is a journalist. All of the references are to his work, where he is briefly quoted, or to family members. See some details on these at article's talk page. There is no coverage of the person, much less significant coverage in reliable, published secondary sources. There has been no attempt to improve the article since the author was notified of these problems a month ago. It appears to be just a well-written vanity piece. Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 5 February 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muine

edit
AfDs for this article:
Muine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable audio player. Can't find any third-party independent sources. Psychonaut (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:32, 5 February 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. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word Structure

edit
Word Structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was prodded by User:Crusio, but I don't feel comfortable with it being deleted without more discussion. The reason given for prodding was "New journal with only 4 issues published yet. No sign of notability. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals).".

Well 4 issues is two years, and two years is plenty enough IMO. However, what would really settle the issue for me is indexing information and impact factor, which I can't find. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is that it's an legitimate academic journal thus is considered to be a reliable source, and is archived by relevant indexes (MLA Bibliography, LLBA, EBSCO, CSA according to DGG an Cnilep [urls would be nice so I could include this in the article]). And it's completely false that the article contains no encyclopedic information. It contains all the basic info of the journal, namely editor, publisher, year of foundation, topic, its scope, etc... Your argument that people makes money by indexing things holds no weight. If that were the case, the iPhone would not deserve its article because Apple, AT&T, et al. makes money off the iPhone, as well as the 3rd party sources by reviewing it.
The question you should be asking is not "does CNN anchors know of Word Structure?", but rather "is Word Structure a notable linguistics journal?" Notability has to be measured in proportion with the subject. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the situation. User:Crusio prodded it, and User:DGG only says "weak keep". The journal itself isn't a WP:Reliable Source, it is the articles it publishes that are reliable. What would convince me is secondary sources about the journal, such as the ones I used to write the article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. In that article, I strove to have something encyclopedic to say. I am not happy with a bare-bones directory listing of "basic info of the journal, namely editor, publisher, year of foundation, topic, its scope, etc...". This to me is the kind of infomation that people can get be Googling the journal's name; who is going to look at the article not knowing the journal's name beforehand? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia; this means to me that all topics on which it has an article have secondary sources. Since this topic does not have secondary sources, it should be deleted, just as if it was a book without secondary sources, or a company without secondary sources, or a flavor of ice cream without secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than the index listings, I can find no coverage of this journal in independent sources, so there is nothing that can be reliably said about it beyond the current directory listing. It is still young, at only two years old, so it hasn't had much time to get a significant reputation or impact - it yet been referenced in any news articles that Google knows about for example. No prejudice against an article should it become notable in future, but it isn't notable currently. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 7 February 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: Too new of slang per WP:NEO, too short per WP:DICDEF, not notable per WP:N, no good sources per WP:RS, and overwhelming consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klunked

edit
Klunked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism lacking GHITS or GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 06:00, 5 February 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. NW (Talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse

edit
BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was originally looking for an introduction to the Bloodhound™ technology found in Norton AntiVirus, but I feel that in its current state, this article is not particularly well-written. Even if it were rewritten completely, its title seems rather unintuitive.
(Note: the edit by the dynamic IP address 70.89.99.102 that you may see in the article's revision history is actually mine.)  Bwrs (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it ONLY if Necessary. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Paradigm of Police Firearms Training

edit
New Paradigm of Police Firearms Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable program. References provided (only after a PROD) are pretty much useless - two are to other WP articles, one is to the program's web site itself, and the other four are generic links that have nothing specific about the program. Looks pretty spammy. Originally PRODded, removed by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:05, 5 February 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 Eaten - Peripitus (Talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Salad Rice

edit
Meat Salad Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable menu choice at a non-notable fast food outlet. No evidence has been provided that it is in any way notable. Indeed, no evidence has been provided to verify any of the claims in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even if we were to add snow peas. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 5 February 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. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keno Auctions

edit
Keno Auctions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly-founded auction company that will not hold its first auction until May 2010. Nonnotable despite the single short NYTimes article discussing the company's founder. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without prejudice toward re-creation if the company becomes notable later, as I suspect it might. For now, the company does not inherit notability from its founder, but it does seem to be headed in a direction that would likely lead to notability later on. (Note: I marked this for speedy before more refs are provided; however, I still favor deletion at this time.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has already achieved international coverage, which sees it as a significant project. It is obviously going to continue to get coverage, as soon as auctions start. At the very least it should be merged with and redirected to Leigh and Leslie Keno, where it is mentioned. There is no justification whatsoever for plain deletion. Well done on the refs, Eastmain! Ty 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a number of refs, and google hits, seems bona-fide...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Refs are good, but being bona fide is not necessarily mean being notable. I'd favor merging with the founders' article for now. Again, it's hard to for an auction company to be notable when it has not conducted its first auction yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Refs are good" = notability. There are often wikipedia articles on subjects which achieve notability in advance of their happening, e.g. films, albums, not to mention 2012 Summer Olympics. I take it your delete is now a merge. Ty 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, don't put words in my mouth, I still think delete is in order for now, though a brief mention in the founders' article(s) would be OK. Your analogy to the Olympics is specious. The Olympics are automatically notable. Auction houses which have not yet done any business are not automatically notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said, "I'd favor merging with the founders' article for now." Now you've said it again: "a brief mention in the founders' article(s) would be OK." If you think the material should be deleted, then you're saying it has no place in wikipedia. If you think it should be in another article instead, this is technically "merge" and this article should be redirected to the other one, where the material can be found. You can't delete the material and also put it elsewhere (if only for GFDL/CC integrity). The mention of the Olympics is valid to show that matters which have not yet taken place can still be notable, and, as I mentioned, this often happens with e.g. films/albums etc, so there is no intrinsic reason why it cannot happen with an auction house, which has already generated coverage. Ty 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll vote the way I please, and I thank you not to try to twist my words to suit your tastes. Since you seem to be intent on this, I will state it more clearly: Delete. The subject is not notable because it has yet to transact any significant business. It may be notable in the future, but at this point it is not Because of your actions, I no longer favor any sort of merge whatsoever. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Calm down. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between putting the info in another article and deleting this one. This is a discussion, not a vote. A decision based on someone else's actions, rather than an objective evaluation, does not carry much weight. Ty 15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they have indeed contracted with the owners to sell items already, that constitutes trading, even if the auction is later. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 10 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Velasquez

edit
Tony Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an athlete for whom no references are available. Instead, reliable sources that would mention a person who is playing for Hispano or Platense have no record of this person (e.g., [61]). If he exists, he is most likely still playing for youth sides. Article was PROD'ed, but that was contested. Jogurney (talk) 03:44, 5 February 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. without prejudice to recreation if in due course the concept is accepted to the point where notability can be shown by significant coverage in independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object Oriented Quality Management

edit
Object Oriented Quality Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. All references in the article are to work by Peter van Nederpelt, who is also this article's author. It doesn't appear that anyone other than him has written about this topic, or at least not using this name. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of references has been added. Please review the article for a second time. PNDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pndt (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pndt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are references by people who are not you. There are references that use the phrase "Object Oriented Quality Management." Sadly, there are no references fitting both criteria. Have any unaffiliated writers covered your work? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The model is new (2009). Therefore no unaffiliated writers are available (yet). Does this mean that there is no place for new developments (in business models in this case) in Wikipedia? If that is the case I have to wait a while and introduce the article later.Pndt (talk) 11:58, 7 February 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. JForget 02:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Jones

edit
Charles L. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the one hand, another editor has tagged this as spam. On the other, the article asserts notability in the following terms: "Jones has been the subject of over 100 magazine and syndicated newspaper articles, including BusinessWeek, International Design Magazine, The Wall Street Journal and Abitare and is frequently interviewed for books related to design and business. He contributed to the editing of the recently released Creating Breakthrough Products by authors Cagan and Vogel published in 2001, and was featured in a chapter in the Cagan/Vogel book The Design of Things to Come, published in 2005. Jones has received over 30 (100) international awards for product design excellence and has been awarded in excess of 20 patents." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian british

edit
Bahamian british (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been previously deleted; a historical version could possibly be merged into British_African-Caribbean_community, but the current version doesn't really say anything. No notability claims, and not even a stub. SS✞(Kay) 01:04, 5 February 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 Schlumberger. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schlumberger Business Consulting

edit
Schlumberger Business Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. unreferenced article that looks like something from their website. hardly any third party coverage [62]. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 February 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. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jûtien-Gustave DuRoi

edit
Jûtien-Gustave DuRoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am surprised--this character doesn't seem to be non-notable, but there are no hits at all on Google News and Google Books, under either of his names, and the "regular" search on the internets delivers nothing of note. I must, therefore, conclude that Jutien-Gustave is not notable. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 February 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. NW (Talk) 23:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flem (disambiguation)

edit
Flem (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by an anon with the reasoning "Two valid bluelinks"; that seems to miss the point. This disambig page points only to Phlegm and Flemish people, but Phlegm already has a hatnote saying that Flem redirects there and pointing to Flemish people (for the sake, I suppose, of anyone who thinks Flemings are called "Flems"). This disambiguation page is thus totally superfluous, as no one is going to search for "Flem (disambiguation)", and anyone searching for "Flem" will either wind up at the page they were looking for (because they can't spell "phlegm") or a page with a hatnote pointing them to the page they were looking for (because they don't know what people from Flanders are called). +Angr 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's likely that this was intended as a bad joke, perhaps by a French-speaking Belgian person who wanted to compare Flemish people to "phlegm". If you think it's funny, it's snot. Mandsford (talk)
  • Delete. What a sticky dilemma. No need for a disambiguation page with only two links, in any event. It's easy to snort out two articles; more might be a different question, assuming all of them are valid. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand—There are more instances of Flem on Wikipedia than just those two, including surnames.—mdash;RJH (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be contracted by exactly one entry before it's expanded. The idea that a Flemish person would be called a "flem" is too f***ing stupid to stay in an encyclopedia. It's like saying "grease" can refer to Greek people. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to removing that line, although I think you could have argued that better.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'd rather use asterisks than to spell out the word "failing"... Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_5&oldid=1142641803"