Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 19

< 18 January	20 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry_Chamberlain

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines for academics.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —NZ forever (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites give h index of 24. This is enough to meet WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Really, is that enough these days? And, does this h index rule vary between the disciplines? Those science types co-author like rabbits, so what would be of major impact in the humanities isn't necessarily the case here. Also, other than this I can't find significant coverage. If we keep it, what is to be done to meet WP:BLP? I've tried to signal that it needs to be fleshed out in the past but there have been no takers. NZ forever (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficiently well published and cited academic and he was one of the founding members and is Chairman of the International Society of Critical Health Psychology which is now referenced. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems no more notable than any number of University professors. Would change to keep if notability can be adequately established in the article, after 4 and a half years that still has not been done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 (which explicitly includes academics in its remit): "The person has ... played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Evidence: reviews of co-authored book Qualitative Health Psychology: theories and methods in Canadian Psychology], Journal of Health Psychology, European Journal of Public Health, Journal of Advanced Nursing. Presumably the place to debate or consider changing the wording of that particular criterion would be WT:BIO rather than here. Qwfp (talk)
Comment. How odd that the deletes are from New Zealand. Looks like a case of Matthew 13:57. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Matthew 13:57 at BibleGateway.com Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A more likely (and charitable) explanation is: people seeing this because of deletion sorting/NZ and being less familiar with academic deletion debates. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That certainly could be the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He's had a reasonable amount of attention in the NZ press: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. And he was a keynote speaker at the NZ Psychological Society Annual Meeting 2009. But more convincing to me (because it's less local) are the Google scholar citation counts: he's one of the world's most-cited scholars in melatonin jet-lag research, and also well-cited (though not quite as much as the top researchers) in psychological well-being. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have to agree with David Eppstein.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Haiti

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Haiti until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I'm finding plenty of reliable sources on the topic and Haiti is notable, in part, for its high crime rate.[6] Deserves an article.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources provides the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Paraguay

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paraguay until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what you meant to say... Mandsford 03:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Location (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Calliopejen1 says it all, one source is reason for improvement and not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are similar article on wiki Someone65 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Mauritania

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mauritania until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - source provides the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Theres similar articles on wiki Someone65 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Benin

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect whatever information is verifiable to Benin until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Calliopejen 1, one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs Someone65 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Cape Verde

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cape Verde until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Calliopejen 1, one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. once again...:)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray E. Bornert II

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

Prod and prod2 tags removed by author and subject of article. Other than a small piece in Wired from several years back, no other coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability of subject. WinHoldEm has also been nominated for deletion.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. andy (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Bornert is very notable in the online poker world since 2003-2004. Go here: forumserver.twoplustwo.com search for either 'Bornert' 'Ray Bornert' or 'Winholdem' ... keep in mind the current db does not include the archives before 2007 but you can do the same searches on the archive site. In that world Winholdem and Bornert are synonymous since 2004. --Riitoken (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:Speedy_keep and WP:Reliable sources, as your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with both. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have used notable which was the point of the reply. --Riitoken (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be clear here: you are Ray Bornert and have a significant conflict of interest in this article and this debate. WP:COI and WP:HONESTY indicate that you should declare this. andy (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COI here. If you think any of my edits do not adhere to WP:NPOV then contest the edits but please do not falsely accuse me. --Riitoken (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No useful Google News hits. Google search hits are all forums/wikis/social networks. Both from searching the article title and simpler "Ray Bornert". Lacks significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Massive COI/self-promotion issues as well. » scoops “5x5„ 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very little evidence of notability and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. High likelihood of WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help I just got my ass handed to me in a bag in the Risk (clone) debate for not being able to find solid sources. I've read the sources in the Bornert article and it strikes me that there are 3 notable publishers of content that mention Bornert and/or his software - MSNBC, Wired magazine, The Mail on Sunday (large U.K. paper). Help me understand why these do not qualify as valid sources that reference Bornert. And don't just post some flippant WP:* ref. please explain specifically why these sources (which were not written by Borner) are unacceptable for Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake stop it! You know full well what's wrong with these sources because it was explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinHoldEm in which you are a participant. These are the same sources as used in WinHoldEm and they have even less value in Ray E. Bornert II - only the Wired article is in any way a suitable source, the others, as you were told at the other afd "deal with the phenomenon of bots in general and give only trivial mentions to the article subject". You are already on a final warning for gaming the system and in particular your disruptive contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) so I strongly suggest you participate properly in this debate, if you have anything of value to say. andy (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, chill dude. I'm just trying to learn here. Is there a Wikipedia rule that demands that sources may only be used in a single article? yes/no? I was not aware of any such rule. Those 3 sources seemed entirely appropriate for the subject matter of all 3 articles. All 3 sources mention Bornert so that seems perfectly fine in an article about him. All 3 sources mention Winholdem and so that seems fine for an article about it. All 3 sources deal with the subject of 'Computer Poker Players' and so that seems fine for an article with the title 'Computer Poker Players'. So I ask you what exactly is your problem here dude? And for the record, I am not the author of any of these 3 Wikipedia articles. You've been riding me for the past week in the Risk (clone) debate. STOP HARRASSING ME!! --Riitoken (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, asking you to look at a link (such as WP:RS or WP:GNG) is not "flippant." These links discuss the appropriate guidelines in quite a bit of detail, far more detail than is appropriate to repeat in this AfD. What you're asking, in effect, is for us to retype the information found in those guidelines here to save you the trouble of clicking on those links. That being said, WP:GNG is the General Notability Guideline, and what it says is that articles need multiple, independent, third-party, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Mentioning a subject is not enough. Quoting the subject in an article about something else entirely is not enough. A sentence or two about where the guy went to school is not enough. Ravenswing 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only the Wired article discusses the subject at all, and not in particularly indepth detail; the degree to which it constitutes "significant detail" per WP:GNG is shaky. In any event, multiple such sources are required, and do not appear. Strong evidence exists that Riitoken = Bornert, bringing WP:COI into the mix. Ravenswing 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The Wired article is the only source of substance. This is simply not enough. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the articles are primarily about pokerbots - specifically Winholdem. Bornert is a the necessary human element because a writer cannot interview a piece of software; so yes the articles are not about Bornert specifically from a Biographical pov. So maybe the citations do no belong in the Bornert living bio article. But I'll be damned if they don't belong in both WinHoldEm and Computer_poker_players articles. All I did was read the article to see if Bornert was mentioned. I had assumed that was enough for the WP living bio. standards (maybe I was wrong). I'm not a biographer; I just thought the references would be useful to anybody that was. --Riitoken (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ V, N, RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the depth of the debate so far and your apparent lack of experience on wikipedia, don't you think that we need a bit more than "V, N, RS"? andy (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This user appears to be reflexively voting "keep" in a variety AFD discussions. And I do mean "vote" instead of "!vote" as the user does nor provide any sort of rationale to support the vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming that Katie's comment of "V, N, RS" refers to WP:V WP:N WP:RS ? I'm still learning the voting process (and abbreviations) but it looks like her vote is based her interpretation of those polices. Yes? No? --Riitoken (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'd be a good guess. It's considered poor form, though (however much we all do it from time to time) to merely quote a link; your view doesn't carry as much weight unless you explain, however tersely, what about that policy or guideline supports your position. Ravenswing 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a sockpuppet trying to make some kind of point. I've asked for someone to look into it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already filed an SPI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock of User:Elizabeth Steinberg. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing the WP:GNG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability for this particular person is not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia

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

Dubious notability. Very limited coverage in third-party sources; almost every citation is trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are not trivial, and much as I wish the site itself didn't exist, that's not the same thing as wanting to delete the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold my nose and keep. Much as I wish we could delete garbage like this from the world in general, it's the sole or main focus of many of the sources used in the article, and they are as far as I can tell reliable. We don't only catalog the nice parts of the world. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Sources are not trivial. Problems can be with systematic POV because many sources are obviously hostile comments by ideological enemies and article does not include sympathetic sources. Some sources like SPLC are inherently unreliable as sources for facts but can be used as sources for opinions of ideological enemies. --Dezidor (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing in WP:RS requiring that sources be neutral or unbiased. Beyond that, the ultimate measure here is whether the sources attest to the subject's notability. I would say a subject important enough to warrant articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center or provoke speeches on the floor of the Bundestag meet that bar. Ravenswing 14:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote. Ravenswing 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient media coverage in several countries to meet notability criterion. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bradshaw

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

Article could be a complete hoax; no other sources corroborate the information that he had significant roles in any of the films mentioned. Furthermore, as IP who nominated it for speedy noted, the actor is not listed on IMDB. I declined the speedy and listed it here to gain consensus before possible deletion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetbravo

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

This company doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability for this company is not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything that fulfills WP:CORP notability in terms of 3rd-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Living Essential Oils

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

No third party reliable sources for this MLM company. The article's only references are the company's own website and a listing on a local United Way site as a partner (plus one site with safety information that doesn't appear to refer to this company specifically).

Only 11 news articles in Google; 5 are relevant: 4 are ads or promotional in nature, and one is a blog that says a snowboarder uses their lip balm. I saw essentially no reliable sources in the first five pages of Google search results, with the only possible exception being a QuackWatch article examining the company's claims. In other words, no reliable sources to confer notability. Zachlipton (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, sources do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:CORP. Should have been deleted along with D. Gary Young, Gary young president of young living, Gary Young (businessman), and Ningxia red. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete said the Dalek (per Ukexpat). Phearson (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As much as I'd like this article to be deleted, salted and then salted again, there are mentions in scholarly material and mentions in books. A survey indicates they lack a depth of coverage and are often dubious or heavily dusted with promotion/COI. However, there are enough that there's a possibility that WP:GNG could be met with A Few Good Articles. tedder (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Nice find with this research. However, I am rather skeptical of the reliability and substancialness of some of these sources. Looking through the scholarly materials, I see some references to the company as a supplier of oils for experiments, but I don't really see discussion of this company beyond that in the articles. I don't think saying "we obtained product X from Young Living" is substantial coverage within the meaning of the GNG. The other "scholarly articles" appear to be spam that has worked its way into Google Scholar. As for the books, they certainly have more substantial coverage, but I'm concerned about their reliability. Many seem to involve personal anecdotes ("I bought these oils from Young Living"). As for the others, it's hard to tell how accepted they are: certainly not by the scientific community, but perhaps by the homeopathic community? Certainly, I and many of us have a POV here as you acknowledge (though I suspect that if this article remained on Wikipedia, it would result in a net loss to the company's reputation compared to if it was just deleted), but I fully acknowledge the article should be kept if it meets the guidelines. I just don't think the sources are really there to cover this subject in a neutral encyclopedic manner. The use of multi-level-marketing also complicates the search for sources, as it creates great incentives for people to promote the company regardless of its merit. Zachlipton (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per weak refs Someone65 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOCA United

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

Youth amateur soccer team; though external links verify the club's existence I can find no evidence that it meets notability inclusion requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable soccer club. -- WikHead (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. Giant Snowman 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, amateur club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable club. --Carioca (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Dasi

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

The only assertion of notability is a link to Disciplining: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. This book is not, in fact, published by Columbia University Press, it is an automatically generated eBook from Philip M. Parker. I believe this would disqualify it as a reliable source in and of itself, but an examination of the source reveals a a "WP" tag following the single sentence biography. As such, this citation is merely a reference to Wikipedia itself! Wikipedia is not a reliable source and cannot confer notability by itself.

In other words, the only citation is one sentence in an eBook that was automatically generated from Wikipedia and consists solely of quotations.

Furthermore, no news links, few web references, none from reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks for poining out my mistake, Zachlipton. Mea culpa, I did not quite fix the citation template for the other WP:RS after Gaura79 removed the unreliable source Disciplining: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. It is fixed now, plus other WP:RSs are added. Admittedly, there is not much material for a start, but it is WP:RSourced now and WP:Notable enough, given that the person in question is the first female leader of a major international Hindu/Vaishnava denomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's concern has been adequately addressed. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you think that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There're many independent, reliable sources in the article now. She's notable as the first female Hare Krishna religious leader and also as a member of the Radha Krsna Temple band. In 1969-1970 they recorded with George Harrison two hit singles Hare Krishna Mantra (#12 in UK Singles Chart and #1 in Germany) and Govinda (#23 in UK Singles Chart). Gaura79 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invision Power Board

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs sources, but is easily one of the most popular bulletin board software suites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we keep it without sources? If it's so popular, where are the sources? Merrill Stubing (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OhNoItsJamie. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is notable. Widely used and well known software. Marokwitz (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus for deletion, so redirect/merge discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital amnesia

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

Delete: An essay with some references, vast majority of which is about the concept of digital obsolescence, others just use the term in a flashy way, and many of them have different things in mind. (For example, this arbitrarily added ref discusses the issue of internet links to scientific articles that went dead ("link rot").)

There is no references which actually introduce the concept in an encyclopedic/systematic way. Lorem Ip (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where have you looked? It cannot have been the several places (e.g. ISBN 9781845447335 pp. 306) that throw up reports of the New Zealand government's throwing some NZD24 millions at the problem in 2004. Or the Australians thinking along the same lines. So where did you look? Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article and my nomination? Citing from the "Australians thinking along the same lines" : But problems arise when reports are removed from the web or relocated to a new website...The Australian Library and Information Services seminar, “Digital Amnesia”, will address issues relating to the access and management of government publications online I.e., they use this flashy word for what has long been known under the ugly term of link rot (the problem even for wikipedia's citage). Lorem Ip (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither the article nor your nomination say where you looked. I notice that you, even when directly asked, don't say where you looked. Is that because you did not look for references that introduce the concept? If not, then where did you look? You didn't read the whole of the article pointed to, by the way. It's not all about linkrot. Read it carefully, all of the way through, rather than just the bits near the part where a WWW browser's find facility finds the (two) words. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've read it all, both two small pagess. From page two: The loss of old material seems to occur most often where a website has gone through an upgrade, change of staff or change of management, or when a significant project and its attendant publications have come to an end. - Which is about possible causes of what? Link rot again. If I miss something besides variouss panic and political babble, please cite. Also, I don't understand your demeaning tone. I don't have to report my reading habits to you. On the contrary, if you have something to cite about "digital amnesia" which is something other than digital obsolescence, please put in into the article, I will delete or tag various dubious statements, and we will need not to carry on this pointless bickering about who read what and how much. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Uncle G: Author Caroline Auty uses the phrase "digital amnesia" exactly once in the book you linked to, Politics and government in the age of the internet, Volume 57, page 306. Auty puts the term in scare quotes to indicate that it is either 1) a joke, 2) an unusual construction, 3) a quote from someone else, or 4) she is not using the term like others use it. Her use is not a definitive one—it is a passing one of no importance. What the New Zealand government spent a bunch of money on was a "trusted digital repository". The one instance on page 306 is the only instance of the word "amnesia" in Auty's publication. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to digital obsolescence: I've never heard the term used myself, and a check in google Scholar shows why--it is almost exclusively an Australian/New Zealand idiom. The concept is real enough, and is known usually as digital obsolescence, though I've seen other names. If there is any unique content here it can be merged, but two phrases for the same thing do not equal two articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See article history; I did so, but I feared the battle with the essay's owner, so I self-reverted and brought it here. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're wasting everyone's time with a deletion discussion where deletion isn't the desired outcome in the first place, and the ordinary editorial action that you took wasn't even disputed? Good grief! AFD, one of the highest-traffic areas of the project, has enough daily traffic with cases where deletion is actually wanted, without manufactured non-deletion cases like this. Don't waste people's time like this. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am asking you again: did you read my nomination? I posted it for deletion because the article speaks NOT about the things in the liberally listed references. As for "not even disputed", thank you very much; in my short time I have run into a surprisingly large number of people who actively edit a certain article and quickly revert your edits with the sole edit comment "no consensus", so I headed straight to "consensus". You say "dont' waste people's time". I don't see many people frequenting this page here. Or did you mean my time is somehow less valuable than yours? Lorem Ip (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Digital Dark Age. The great majority of cites do not have a direct reference to "digital amnesia", and at least one which does uses it in an ironic way. This article is clearly made up out of one Australian seminar and a whole lot of original research. Article sources:

http://www.uic.edu/classes/comm/comm200am/teamprojects/MemoryTechnologies/Information_Overload.htm – Unreliable source, simple class notes
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1155/The_great_digital_information_disappearing_act.html – Jokingly refers to "digital amnesia"
http://www.librarylaws.org/taxonomy/term/41 – Link not working for me
"Businesses Worry About Long-Term Data Losses" – No mention of topic phrase
http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20050718TG.php – Toss Gascoigne's address, "Digital amnesia: the challenges of government online"
http://conferences.alia.org.au/seminars/digital.amnesia2005/ – Announcement of above, and links to other presentations at the ALIA conference
http://www.sdsc.edu/about/director/pubs/communications200812-DataDeluge.pdf – PDF does not have the word "amnesia" in it
http://www.aiim.org/Infonomics/IssueView.aspx?ID=47 – No text on webpage page
http://www.physorg.com/news144343006.html – No mention of topic phrase
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/21/tech/main537308.shtml – No mention of topic phrase
http://blog.longnow.org/category/digital-dark-age/ – Blog, unverifiable, no mention of topic phrase
http://www.lostmag.com/issue3/memory.php – No mention of topic phrase
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ – Generic main page with no direct relevance to topic, no mention of topic phrase, no word "amnesia" found in searching the site.

This article is an unneeded neologism fork of Digital Dark Age. What was wrong with that term? Move all the best bits over there. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to digital obsolescence, which is a short article on exactly this topic by a less obscure name. The Digital Dark Age article is more about a particle name and concept, rather than the generic problem. Maybe merge it, too. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a better article to merge to—good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per last AfD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Two Cities

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

Delete: fails WP:Notability and, despite a promise to expand when the prod tag was removed, that hasn't happened; no sources provided; dubious provenance; adds no value to cricket project --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:V. --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable. --Roisterer (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I PRODed it back in December because I considered it non-notable as it is not colloquially a major cricket match, which is of no historical importance. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a brief mention at Mohamed Bouazizior some other appropriate article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Bouterfif

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

Delete Do we really need an article for every supposed copycat of Mohamed Bouazizi? Do self immolations get a free pass from WP:BLP1E concerns? This article, in its current form, contains exactly ONE sentence about this person. The rest of it refers to Bouazizi, the path of the Tunisian president and family, and other copycat incidents. There's nothing to work with here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. And you assume there will be nothing in the future as more details evolve? That is what the {{Expert-subject}} is for. I really can not understand why you guys seem to enjoy AfD-ing current event aticles. This man is Algerian, as opposed to Boazizi who was Tunisian. That's like AfD-ing Vytautas Vičiulis of Lithuania because he was a copycat incident for Liviu Cornel Babeș's self-immolation in Romania and both were protesting their respective country's communist govenrment. They both have different governments and different grievances and reasons, just because it's a copycat incident does not mean it's exactly the same thing as the first incident (if that were the case we would all have already removed the individual articles on the U.S. school shootings). The Algerian riots have started long before Bouazizi died. And again can we please at least wait until we can actually determine if it deserves to be kept? Preferably after the incidents, the most you can get out of these lightning AfD's is that multiple instances of the article will be created and deleted again and again. Sorry, but I do believe these nominations have all been nothing but disruptive.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok now that sufficient time has passed and there doesn't seem to be any more info forthcoming, I amend my vote. I do strongly suggest not to AfD articles immediately after thay have been created especially in something that just happened. During this period it is still unclear whether or not it is notable especially since it is given quite significant news coverage. Even if this was a copycat, they are two different countries with different reasons, and two different instances of unrest before both their self-immolations. All foreign countries may look alike to you there, but they aren't. Putting an AfD tag on it is, to put it lightly, highly disruptive, as the AfD tag is very prominent. Like what happened when someone AfD'd Mohamed Bouazizi. Let the events that follow itself make the decision, an AfD discussion is redundant and crystal-ballish.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsure the article in its current state doesnt consitute much to warrant a separete article, HOWEVER the possibility exists because of notability. he was the FIRST copycat afterall.(Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
Delete - most high-profile self-immolations are followed by numerous copycats. They are non-notable unless they spark something new and have consequences. So far nobody demonstrated that this incident is any different from other copycats. A simple mention in Mohamed Bouazizi would suffice. Renata (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This article and other copy-cat articles shoudl be merged into a new article about self-immolations in the Arab world. Perhaps in an article entitled List of 2011 self-immolations. This article] from two days ago puts the number of self-immolations at 10, and there was another one in Saudi Arabia reported today. The Mohsen Bouterfif article is well written and well sourced and it is only 91 words of text, so it would be an excellent start to a list. I know that some would argue that the List_of_political_self-immolations is sufficient, but there's more than 40 entries on that page there's no accompanying commentary explaining how certain self-immolations are connected politically. David Straub (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what a merged article could look like: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident.David Straub (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: I doubt Mr. Bouterfif needs a separate article - he's neither the first to do this in Algeria this year nor the first to die of it - but that depends on the response to his death (which only seems to have happened today) over the next week or two. - EmeutesAlgerie (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than a week since he died. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the first report of his death was denied the next day. - EmeutesAlgerie (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The article notes his death as being 16 January 2011. If that's wrong, correct it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Renata. Diego Grez (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel ebooks

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

After a quick search, I can't really find any good references for this company other than their website. I feel, however, that based on the rather large (and perhaps erm, true?) claims this article makes, that it doesn't qualify for CSD A7. Levinge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only press seems to be a few press releases, and even those aren't widely distributed. A few mentions in non-reliable sources, but nothing significant, and really no RS coverage that I can dig up. I can't find anything to back their claim, nor do I really understand what an "independent" eBook store is anyway. Zachlipton (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good referencing appears. I think they mean they belong to one person, and are not a big company like B & N and Amazon. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Nevers (baseball)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. There are a ton of players who starred in amateur/high school sports, so that does not inherently make him notable. There are a ton of first rounders who never reach the big leagues, so he isn't notable because he was a first round pick either. He played 13 years in the minor leagues but did not post numbers that would merit an article. The only thing I did notice was he was drafted by the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins - does being drafted by a hockey team merit an article? Alex (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Was drafted at number 100 in the 1989 NHL Entry Draft, which doesn't make him inherently notable either, and I could find no proof he ever played in the NHL or other significant coverage so fails WP:GNG as well. Ravendrop (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida)

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

Does not meet USRD notability guidelines or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Suggest merge into List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Admrboltz (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per nom. Dough 48 72 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I fully endorse the nomination rationale (a.k.a. "per nom"). Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - unlike the roads with significant bridges, even this inclusionist isn't sure this one deserves its own article. Might have some historical notability, but that would be as Riverside Drive (Daytona Beach), not CR 4011. Are the road's former routes (US-1, ODH) enough to make it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A former section of US Highway 1, former section of Dixie Highway, current section of Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does meet USRD notability as a standalone article Gamweb (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still needs secondary sources. All sources listed are primary. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - North of Ormond Beach, the local street name is still "Old Dixie Highway." Would you like me to take a photo of it for you? Gamweb (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Photos are not reliable sources. If the road was part of the Dixie Highway, then maybe that is a better target for merger. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would prefer to see it merged to Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does not exist yet. Perhaps it can be redirected to the County List page temporarily until the Loop page is created. Gamweb (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, thats what I originally suggested. I am not asking for the article to be deleted, but to be merged into the list. If after someone creates the trail's page, then we can copy the data from the page history / list into the new trail article. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as long as the article info is retained there. And why is this listed as an AfD and not a merge request? — AjaxSmack 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous merger and prod requests are quickly reverted by others, and this is a more enforceable venue. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous "merge" wasn't. It was a unilateral delete and redirect. — AjaxSmack 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to new name as suggested above, as long as there is an editor willing to work on it, which it looks like there is. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested and willing to work on an article about the block-long street that runs past my apartment. That is not a valid reason to keep (or create) and article that does not meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are you so sure this road is not notable? FieldMarine (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I don't see any coverage in reliable sources beyond the fact that this road is on a map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you basing your opinion there is not sufficient reliable sources from just Internet search? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm not. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - How do access all the non-digitized works on the history of Volusia to be sure there are not sufficient reliable sources? FieldMarine (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't work that way. If you want to keep the article you must show that significant coverage in reliable published sources exists. (I think the above statement is a logical extension of WP:BURDEN.) -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Rs chen 7754 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Thorpe

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

Non-notable 30-year-old minor league baseball pitcher with a 32-47 record and a 4.56 ERA. It is highly unlikely he is ever going to reach the major leagues , or affiliated professional baseball again, for that matter. Alex (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second guideline of the baseball notability guidelines: "Have appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level national league." Having played in the top professional leagues of both Mexico and Venezuela, I feel he qualifies. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kinston eagle. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I will note that I do not believe the Mexican League qualifies as a top level league since its absorption into the MiLB hierarchy, the LVBP certainly does, so Thorpe's notable. -Dewelar (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange case. Mexican League teams don't have any formal affiliation with individual MLB clubs, and that degree of autonomy is IMO enough to set it apart as an independent league for the purposes of the intent of the "top-level foreign league" classification. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's a bit nebulous. The Mexican League is pretty much the only league that has this kind of relationship with MLB/MiLB (the closest might be something like the DSL, or the various Latin American winter leagues). I'm open to arguments that La Liga counts, but my gut instinct says no. -Dewelar (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I wrote the initial draft of that clause in WP:WPBB/N, and I definitely considered the Mexican League (just to be clear, we're talking about the LMB here) to be qualifying at that time. Its existence as a notable national league precedes its involvement in any capacity with MLB by about 40 years. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that the LMB would have qualified before its association with MLB. However, once it became associated with MLB, its status was diminished to that of a minor league, and IMO anyone who played in it from that point forward would no longer have presumed notability conferred upon them. -Dewelar (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. for a merge the material to be merged must be reliably sourced as otherwise this is original research. If proper (ie. non blig sourcing) can be found then I'll happily undelete for a merge but until then the unsourced = delete argument current has the weight of policy behind it Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish community chernigov"

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

NOTE This article has now been moved to Jewish community at Chernigov. If the result is "delete" then please delete that article, as well as the redirect at "Jewish community chernigov". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about a "community" as opposed to an actual town or religion. I don't see anything overly notable and this congregation in themselves, but perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps it should've been tagged for CSD, but I didn't feel that any criteria indefinitely applied. Levinge (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Could even be speedy deletion (CSD A7). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Only source given is a blog. Safiel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Chernihiv. Chernigov is an alternate spelling of Chernihiv, which currently has an article. Evidently, there is notable Jewish history with that town, but certainly not to the point of requiring a separate article. Any relevant, sourced information about this Jewish community should be added there. However, the source currently given, being a blog, is unacceptable. Safiel (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Safiel "Delete and Merge" cannot be done technically, what you mean to say is "Merge and Redirect" -- thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either Chernihiv, as per User:Safiel, or to History of the Jews in Ukraine#Jewish communities. Let's not lose the raw data, it does need spell-check though. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Chernihiv.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability.--俄国 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Malik Shabazz. cab (call) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.C.

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

Article is about a rap musician with no independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and a likely autobiography. As far as I can tell, this is an unsigned artist. The content of this article bears a striking resemblance bio on his web site. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per policy the correct way to counter deletion arguments based on lack of sourcing is to provide some. This doesn't appear to have happened so the delete arguments whilenumerically less are actually the only policy based arguments put forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FastCode

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

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

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

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

I cannot find any coverage of this contest to indicate that it meets the general notability guideline can be met. (PROD was was contested). SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be clarified (or perhaps you're just misreading it) but it's not the contest that's important. It's not "covered" because only the participants in the contest actually care about the competition itself. The improved code that comes out of it, on the other hand, is quite significant and is well-known in the Delphi community. There's no good reason to delete this article just because one minor detail doesn't have much "coverage" in blogs or news. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article says FastCode is the contest - is this true? IOW, the thing you refer to as "one minor detail" is the subject of the entire article, right? I may have mangled this when I removed the copyrighted text, but it sure seemed to say this all along. If FastCode is well known in the Delphi community, then it should be pretty easy to find reliable sources to help satisfy the general notability guidelines, which are required for a subject to be a stand-alone article. Do such sources exist? If so, please add them to the article or let me know about them so I can do it. If not, then what you mean by "well-known" is not the same as notability as we talk about it on wikipedia, and we should delete this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the article to clarify that FastCode is a programming project implemented as a contest. And there are five sources in the article so far, three of them from official Embarcadero sources. So can we drop the "no reliable sources" nonsense already? 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three are self-published and the other is not independent and they are therefore not what we consider to be "reliable" as WP:RS explains. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the articles happen to be found in blogs doesn't mean they're automatically to be discounted as "self-published". They're not just any old person's blog rambling about whatever; those are links from official technical blogs from top Delphi team members, hosted by Embarcadero, the owner of Delphi. That's about as official as it gets for a major software product that's sold over the Internet. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is not that they're blogs - I think those blogs would be fine for certain kinds of verification, etc. But most of them are not independent sources. We need sources from unaffiliated organizations in order to establish notability. The entire premise of this discussion is the general notability guidelines; it would be helpful to read them for anyone who wishes to participate here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of something technical and used by Embarcadero (even though it's run by third party programmers) is that most articles about it will be by the people who wrote it - they know the most, after all! - or Embarcadero, since they make Delphi. While I agree with the motive behind the guidelines is good, in this case it's counter-productive and serves to exclude the most informative content.

(You can see this easily by looking at similar pages - take [7] or [8] for example. Most of those pages' references don't qualify by those standards, yet anyone who knows about either of the products would agree (a) they're notable and (b) they're good sources.)

I'm not arguing the motive; just pointing out it's counter-productive, circular, and serves to remove information from Wikipedia. I'm sure you don't want that.

Btw, I'm a neutral third party - a normal Delphi programmer, just one well aware of how useful FastCode has been. Thought I'd put in my two cents since the moderators seem to not move in Delphi circles.

TL;DR Argument is counterproductive in this specific case, it's a guideline & look at similar articles; you should add sources that know most about the topic.

06:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)203.45.22.138 (talk) David M

We seem to be talking past each other. I did not say to remove the blogs. Nobody is removing those sources, are they? I am just saying that they don't establish notability. What "moderators" are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe by "moderators" he means "people who are always trying to delete things based on strict adherence to their rigid interpretation of the letter of the law, without any actual ___domain knowledge for the subject at hand, who persist in wilfully ignoring the contributions of any experts who have ___domain knowledge as long as it doesn't agree with their preconceived viewpoints." 71.112.196.128 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"rigid interpretation of the letter of the law" - you mean the desire for independent sources? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But most of them are not independent sources." Can you clarify for me what is an independent source in this case? If you mean having nothing to do with Delphi at all, then no, there can't be any "independent" sources. But the article isn't about Delphi. All the references I see are from people that were not involved in the FastCode project. To me that makes them "independent sources." Blwhite (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this one for example: Steve Trefethen worked on incorporating Fastcode stuff into Delphi 2007. The embarcadero.com blogs are obviously affiliated with a company that directly benefits from Fastcode, but many of those do not even significantly cover Fastcode, so they can't be used to satisfy the concerns raised in this afd anyway. Can you point to a particular blog reference in the article that you feel is unaffiliated, significantly covers Fastcode itself, and is reliable? The gerixsoft.com reference has potential, but see WP:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm not being clear or I don't understand what 'independent' means. Steve was not part of the FastCode group.

FC was/is a community contribution. Delphi employees generally stayed out of it. They did offer some prizes for some of the later competitions. After the competition was complete, Steve was involved in incorporating a few of the results into Delphi. So he was clearly part of the group that benefited from the work by FastCode. But all 2 million Delphi users in the world are in that group. It would be like not being able to write about Office because you've used it, you're not independent. Clearly I'm not grasping where the boundary is.Blwhite (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"grasping where the boundary is" - yeah, I think it's debatable. I was claiming that this is not really unaffiliated because he is, in a sense, using FastCode's advantages as a way of explaining why his product and work, Delphi 2007, is better. To use your Office example, rather than just a user, consider someone who wrote about how he helped people install and configure Office as a 3rd party consultant and how great Office was; I wouldn't consider this to be an entirely unaffiliated party. Also, wp:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Embarcadero Delphi, which mentions FastCode. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's probably the best solution. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or move to FastMM, with a section there about Fastcode? I think this article pretty solidly demonstrates the notability of FastMM. Would folks say that FastCode is significant primarily because of FastMM? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid question. I would guess 'no'. I like the way the article sums it up. "FastCode is unique among contributions to commercial compiler runtime libraries for its community-driven and open source nature." I don't know everything about every OS project, but this one seems unique to me in the contributions, of which FastMM was the largest, that it has made to thousands of people using Delphi.Blwhite (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my !vote, because of the The Delphi Magazine articles. I haven't read them, but if the rumors are true they discuss Fastcode for multiple pages, so the subject likely satisfies wp:GNG. I don't believe any of the other sources in the article do much to help establish that it satisfies wp:GNG, however. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can gather, it is a coding project at sourceforge structured as a competition. But regardless, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. All I am able to find are blogs and forum posts. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the decision to delete this article is based on ignorance and is being made arbitrarily. As far as I can tell, the decision to delete this article is being made by one person without any real subject matter knowledge. On the other hand, a number of people who are and were involved in FastCode are pointing out it's legitimacy. It is difficult to understand why the person with no subject matter expertise gets the final say over those with the subject matter expertise. I myself was an Embarcadero employee and can testify personally to the significance and value of the FastCode project. It is not merely a "contest", but a community of developers who use competition to provide significant improvements to a significant commercial project. There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations. NickHodges — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHodges (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all anyone is saying is that the article needs references to significant coverage in reliable, independent (unaffiliated) sources. I couldn't really find any, and I'm assuming SmartSE and Whpq couldn't either. You can testify to its significance, but Wikipedia in a sense only cares about verifiability, it does not care about the credentials of its editors. "There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations." - please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't buy the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. If one points to a clearly legitimate article on Wikipedia, that is a valid argument for keeping a similar page. If it isn't, well, then the decision to remove a page can be utterly arbitrary. If every character in Grey's Anatomy has a page, then it seems perfectly legitimate to have a page for every character in The Office. How could one argue otherwise? NickHodges (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How could one argue otherwise?" I'm advocating arguing from policies and guidelines, or even, to a lesser extent of course, from past deletion discussions. Those are not arbitrary, because tons of discussion goes into them. "article x" is what is arbitrary, because no discussion necessarily went in to whether or not to create an article for Derek Shepherd, for example. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is arbitrary is the existence of other pages that are allowed to remain. I agree that we should argue from policy. How is the continuing existence of a given page not part of policy? NickHodges (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to nominate those for deletion, also. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, that's not "all anyone is saying." The original contributor has been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. Which seems a bit harsh, considering he created one page about a free project. It doesn't affect whether the page should stay or go, but it does contribute to the feeling of overreaction here. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about "feeling of overreaction". But that action has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. When I said "all anyone is saying" I meant "all anyone is saying here in this deletion discussion". Sorry if that was unclear. Also, the person who created it is not banned from editing, the block notice says "You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization." Just the username was against the username policy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this article covers an important aspect of programming and is notable Sysrpl (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe there is sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable 3rd party sources to establish notability, per wp:GNG? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this discussion began, more sources have been added, including a couple of references to independent magazine articles that talk about FastCode. Seems to me that that meets the guidelines for independence and notability. 71.112.196.128 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There has been some highly targeted, off-wiki canvassing for this discussion. While I think has resulted in some really good work on the article, it may also have had the effect of lots of sympathetic !voters here in this discussion. Since it's not a vote, this should be fine, but I would appreciate it if the closing admin paid especially close attention to theThat's a really good point. But consider; how do you know it is either unique or has had a recognizable effect? Wikipedia insists that everything is verifiable and on not publishing original research, so we would have to find some reliable source, like a scholarly journal merits of the arguments being made and did not rely on !vote count alone to determine consensus. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does that mean? There have only been two sympathetic !votes cast so far; that hardly constitutes "lots". As one of the principal instigators of this "highly targeted canvassing," I can assure you that the efforts were focused entirely upon coming up with better material for the article, especially sources that would pass review, and not at all on recruiting people to say things on this discussion page. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"only been two sympathetic !votes cast" - I think it's at least 3. But anyway, considering that is about half the total number of votes so far, I think my point stands. "I can assure you that the efforts were focused entirely upon coming up with better material for the article..." I don't doubt it at all! I totally assume good faith here – and like I said, the main effect of the off-wiki discussion has been hugely beneficial for the article. I'm quite happy about it. I am not in any way pushing for any kind of sanctions or anything; please don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to imply by using the word "canvass" that it was intentional, I meant to say that it may be having that effect - I probably misspoke here and I apologize. By "targeted", again, I did not mean to imply that the targeting was deliberate to affect the outcome, merely that the conversation was probably almost exclusively viewed by those who are positively disposed toward Fastcode. Again, the word "target" probably didn't help, and I apologize for that as well. I'm only trying to say that due to the possibly uneven exposure that this discussion has received, the closing admin ought to be careful not to just count !votes. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.Blwhite (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article introduces efficient coding techniques. FastCode is not simply a contest. The outcome of this contest is a library which is being used in many commercial projects and products including the Delphi itself. SirGalahad (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it introduces efficient techniques or is only a contest or not don't have anything to do with whether FastCode meets the general notability guidelines.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read the general notability guidelines, but some of the discussion here and in the article indicate that the form of this project is unique and had a "recognizable" effect. I guess such a thing should be notable: unique and recoginzable effect! How much rubbish is written about some celebrities, which isn't deleted even if it's neither unique nor of any real importance (except for the celebrity).--91.37.254.216 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good point. But consider; how do you know it is either unique or has had a recognizable effect? Wikipedia insists that everything is verifiable and on not publishing original research, so we would have to find some reliable source, like a scholarly journal or other 3rd-party, reputable publication, that had done this analysis and concluded that FastCode was unique and had a recognizable effect in order to make that statement in the article. And that would satisfy the GNG. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010 Midwest Blizzard

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Has sources but the lack of size in the article suggests that this wasn't a significant one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised this one isn't expanded further since it was both the largest snowfall in the Twin Cities in a long time and caused the Metrodome collapse. However in Wisconsin it really didn't do much, so if this is rewritten, it should be focused more on the Minnesota impact and be titled as such. As it is though, not an unusual snow event in Wisconsin. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of notability and lasting historical significance. SNaismith (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Senate Democrats

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

Article is content fork of articles such as 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly and Oregon State Senate and does not meet WP:ORG because it is not an official organization, unlike, say, the Democratic Party of Oregon. Esprqii (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly#Senate members is a much better presentation of this information. There, the senate democrats have context with the rest of the chamber members—and their terms, geographic district, and committees. —EncMstr (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless fork. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Legislative caucuses are absolutely official organizations in American politics. They determine who can and cannot be a member, determine their own leadership, and are generally recognized by the rules of the legislative body. I will reserve my judgment on the article itself until I have done some more research. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Mmm, but does that make the caucus notable? Is there anything to say about the subject that can't be/hasn't been said in one of the other articles? Are there reliable sources discussing the caucus in "significant detail?" Ravenswing 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— As Esprqii stated, the same information the article has can be found in 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly and Oregon State Senate. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable as a caucus or official entity, and is otherwise a redundant fork of Oregon State Senate and 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly. --Opus 113 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been produced in the course of the discussion and the consensus since then is that they confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Fare

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

Unremarkable band. No significant converage, seems to be passing mentions only. External links are all spam/adverts. — Timneu22 · talk 17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Timneu22. This appears to be nothing more than a struggling band trying to get some publicity. Apollo (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and can I ask how this didn't get A7ed? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Fare&action=historysubmit&diff=408812431&oldid=408800413. — Timneu22 · talk 10:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it doesn't meet the criteria for A7, which requires "no claim to notability." My internet is too slow to load the the external links so I can't comment on how good of a claim to notability it is. l'aquatique[talk] 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if editors commenting here could address the sources cited in the article, and why they do or do not meet our guidelines. The only ones with which I am familiar are The Sunday Times and the The New York Times, which have short pieces about the band, which would contribute towards notability but are probably not enough on their own. Are the others enough to get this over the bar? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good place to start when attempting to determine the notability of bands and musicians is generally Allmusic (a bona-fide reliable source), who have a biography of the band alongside a review of their debut album. There are also independent album reviews at The Sunday Times, Drowned in Sound, The Line of Best Fit, musicOMH and Popmatters. Meets WP:MUSIC#1, easily. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some citations to the article, and I'd be grateful if some of the previous contributors to this AfD would review their !votes in the light of this. Thanks. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The further sources found by Sparklism seal the notability deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sparklism's cites are helpful, but can we please figure out how to work the citations from the "critical acclaim" section into the rest of the article so we can get rid of that section? It's very spammy sounding. l'aquatique[talk] 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely that's a metter for editing or talk page discussion rather than anything relevant to the decision on whether to keep or delete this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a comment... l'aquatique[talk] 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Darth Chess

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

Purportedly a Star Wars character, however not listed at List of Star Wars characters. Even if this is genuine, the character is not notable enough to warrant an article on its own, i.e. any info should be merged into List of Star Wars characters - of course only if it is not a hoax. And looking at the page creators other edits that seems highly likely. Travelbird (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by User:Courcelles. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eau Claire Crush

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

Non-notable semi-pro football team, sources are not independent. Fails WP:N as well as WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Potential violations of WP:ADV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT as well. PROD was declined but no reason was given to keep and article was not imrpoved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannover Spartans

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

Non-notable American football team, has never played above third tier in the German league system. Calistemon (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The teams article on the German Wikipedia was deleted twice because of non-notability (see here). Calistemon (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, though I don't know whether this should point to List of American football teams in Germany or to the league's article, or somewhere else. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source provided is the team website, fails WP:RS and potential WP:POV issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It´s a 4th or 5th leagued american football team so surely not notable. Kante4 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I agree... but what does "4th or 5th leagued" mean?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 300 (film)#Prequel. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xerxes (film)

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

Per WP:NFF; Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Xerxes specifically is in the very earliest stages of development as the source material has yet to even be published. There is no sure production much less for film this in this stage of the process. TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 300 (film)#Prequel like before. This project has been discussed for a while, but it is nowhere near production. For all we know, Snyder will spend two years doing the new Superman movie. No issue with article recreation if filming ever does begin. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirection is an acceptable solution. If that is what is decided this AfD could be used to point to for consensus in case of reversion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexrose08 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate was not listed in the log, so I'm going to go ahead and list it. Consider this a relisting; on the merits I am Neutral. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is unsourced! This is WP:CRYSTAL!

...Crystal.

...

...THIS! IS! NOT! NOTABLE!

I had to do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will erase the very name of Xerxes (film) from all the histories and add a relevant picture to this discussion. SixthAtom (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 300 (film)#Prequel Where this project is already mentioned in context.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did flag images and huge headers become the proper format for AFD discussions?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect?! You Greeks take pride in your logic. I suggest you employ it. Consider the beautiful land you so vigorously defend. Picture it reduced to ash at my whim! Consider the fate of your women! Skier Dude (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give them nothing, but take from them everything! (this discussion is fun) SixthAtom (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanata Academy

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

Non-notable, small private school. PK T(alk) 13:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Independent elementary school. WikiManOne (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kanata, Ontario#Schools (where it would need to be added to the list of schools). Non-notable elementary school. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ward (musician)

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

This article is about a musician without significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find event listings from the Coventry paper such as [9], [10], and [11], but that is not significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject.J04n(talk page) 19:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria per WP:Music, no independent 3rd party sources other than local trivial mentions per nom. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, has been translated. Jac16888 ^Talk 20:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9th arrondissement of Marseille

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

Procedural nomination. Remains largely untranslated after much longer than two weeks listed at WP:PNT Jac16888 ^Talk 10:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Largest arrondissement in a major city. Most of the text is translated. It's just some of the tables aren't. They can easily be removed and added again when someone gets around to translating. Otherwise deleting this worthy topic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An incomprehensible nomination. Even at the time of nomination more than enough of this had been translated for it to be a valid English Wikipedia article, so why nominate for deletion rather than just remove any remaining text that offends you? And what's this "procedural nomination" about? I know of no procedure in Wikipedia that requires any article to be nominated for deletion without common sense being applied. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears thoroughly translated, which was the only concern raised by the nominator, and certainly appears notable.--Opus 113 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, translation complete, thanks. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of châteaux in Rhône-Alpes

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

Procedural nomination. Remains untranslated after much longer than two weeks listed at WP:PNT Jac16888 ^Talk 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Just Kept in AfD - This article, along with several others was just AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon and was kept less than three weeks ago. It's a list and there's very little, if anything, to translate anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, There's nothing to translate. List needs a lede, but that is a minor point. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, has been translated. Jac16888 ^Talk 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of châteaux in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

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

Procedural nomination. Remains largely untranslated after much longer than two weeks listed at WP:PNT Jac16888 ^Talk 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Just Kept in AfD - This article, along with several others was just AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon and was kept less than three weeks ago. It's a list and there's no translating to do anyway. I'm wondering if the nom even looked at the article to see if it needed translating. --Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, There's nothing to translate. List needs a lede, but that is a minor point. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago

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

No citations, promotional tone Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Looks like COI. Reads like a course/university calendar description. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Adabow. Schwede 66 01:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, agree with above.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Anthony Bradbury. Non-Admin Closure. Edgepedia (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

နတ္နဂါးမင္းသားေလး

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

Unknown language, and possibly vanity on self or is fiction Rabbit67890 (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's Burmese, as you might guess by looking at the article content (which is in English). There's no deletion sorting list; I left a comment at WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) instead. cab (call) 07:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. All article titles on en: should be in the Latin alphabet, no matter how much more attractive others are; no one looking for this could find it. At any rate, this seems to be an unreferenced article about a living person, and does not appear to claim minimal importance; it seems to be about the leader of an online gaming group: He is well known among the Myanmar professional Dota gamers. In 2008, he joined to နတ္သဘင္ site and his nick name become နတ္နဂါးမင္းသားေလး. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcoyc (talk • contribs)
Delete per Ihcoyc. Even if this article's title were in the English alphabet, it would still be an unsourced biography with no clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot read this name and other parts in Burmese in all the browsers I utilize (Opera and Chrome, followed by Firefox and IE). As such if I cannot read it even if I have every language pack installed, I cannot determine if this works. Nonetheless the lack of sources makes for an easy delete call. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I am a Burmese. It's a vandalism from a gamer. Soewinhan (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everyone else, can we WP:SNOWBALL this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Martin County, Florida. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 713 (Martin County, Florida)

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

Article does not meet USRD notability guidelines or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Admrboltz (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support merger. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. I would say merge but there is no place to merge to. Dough 48 72 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge now that a list has been created. Dough 48 72 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge as I fully endorse the nomination rationale (a.k.a. "per nom"). Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a first choice, merge to List of county roads in Martin County, Florida, but that article does not exist yet. So as a second choice, delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then somebody should start a list now. I hope it doesn't have to be me, because I have a lot of other projects in my sandbox. But if I have to, I'll make a redlink for a List of county roads in Martin County, Florida sandbox now. It should also be noted that I've saved the article on a wordfile. ----DanTD (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created one, although it needs some furthur work. Gamweb (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of County Roads. Gamweb (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of county roads in Martin County. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Rs chen 7754 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. - per nom. FieldMarine (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 365 (Wakulla County, Florida)

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

Does not meet USRD notability or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Suggest merge into List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida. Admrboltz (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida, with the state-road redirects changed to point there as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Bushranger. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nom. Dough 48 72 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A former Florida State Road, which does meet USRD notability as a standalone article Gamweb (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is true, the article does not meet the WP:GNG as it has 0 sources to prove its notability. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as there is an editor willing to work on it. FieldMarine (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not very good reasoning. --Rs chen 7754 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable. --Rs chen 7754 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 374 (Wakulla County, Florida)

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

Does not meet USRD notability or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Suggest merge into List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida. Admrboltz (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of county roads in Wakulla County, Florida, with the state-road redirects changed to point there as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Bushranger. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Rs chen 7754 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nom. Dough 48 72 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A former Florida State Road/Highway, which does meet USRD notability as a standalone article Gamweb (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is true, the article does not meet the WP:GNG as it has 0 sources to prove its notability. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as there is an editor willing to work on it. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could write an article about the street I live on, and that would fit the criteria you give above. --Rs chen 7754 23:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unmade and unreleased Disney animated shorts and feature films

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

A list of unproduced, unfinished, and unreleased films is a list of a lot of nothing. Unverifiable and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dolovis (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable enough that there's a whole published book on the topic (The Disney That Never Was, ISBN 0786860375). Some of the later stuff is unsourced and could probably use some trimming, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, clearly defined criteria for inclusion, no shortage of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per relevant sources. The article could stand a better title though; perhaps List of unreleased Disney media?. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability by way of books that cover the subject matter. Needs a serious cleanup though, as everything from the 70's onward lacks a source. The rename suggestion is good as well. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:list criterion, sources establish notability of subject. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Everything animated that is related to Walt and his company is notable including the shorts and features that never were as Walt was prone to halt exiting projects for various of reasons, sometimes for lack of originality, workload to much or to save cost, if Walt had had finished all of these unmade projects he probably would have ended up with an animated short library that probably would have matched the Looney Tunes in nr of produced shorts and probably twice as many animated features. I would say that everything unproduced/unreleased during Walt is life time seems to be accurate but the article should also keep track on post Walt unproduced/unreleased stuff since practice of halting projects didn't vanish with Walt is passing. Although I can agree that post 1970 material needs better sourcing and confirmation as I understand this article it list films that were put into pre-production at minimum (storyboard/concept art) and/or production (rough animation/pencil test) but halted for various of reason as I said before. If a film is not even consider for pre-production at minimum (storyboard/concept art) it shouldn't be included in the list at al as such films should be considered bogus, rumors a.k.a WP:CRYSTALBALL and should be removed from the article but films put at minimum into pre-productions should be included on the list as long as it meets wp:list criterion, sources establish notability of abandoned project in question. But about moving the article to new name as I can see that the current name is confusing I did move the article form List of unmade and unreleased Disney animated shorts and feature films to List of unreleased Disney animated shorts and feature films or List of unreleased Disney animated projects rather than already suggested List of unreleased Disney media as that title clearly mix animated projects with live-action projects and I not so sure if that is a wise move so I would suggest that if unamde live-action Disney projects will ever gets there own list i did suggest on of the following titles: List of unreleased Disney live-action shorts and feature films or List of unreleased Disney live-action projects. DoctorHver (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. for this article to be notable there have to be sufficient sources that discuss Pakistan - Paraguay relations as a specific subject otherwise the article is just OR and/or unveriable. The keep arguments haven't addressed this and deleteion arguments based on GNG therefore appear policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan–Paraguay relations

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

this really is pushing the bar for any sort of notability. 2 of the 3 sources merely confirm non resident embassies (the fact that Paraguay's Egypt embassy looks after Pakistan says something. the article goes on about Pakistan-MERCOSUR relations not specific bilateral relations. I've found no coverage of these bilateral relations [12]. those wanting to keep should supply actual evidence of relations. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the relationship may not be "significant", however, I would like to point out that information in this page has "weight," and confines with Wikipedia original philosophy of providing the sum of all human knowledge. Paraguay has a small diplomatic footprint across the globe, one embassy usually caters for a dozen or more countries particularly in Asia and Africa. Pakistan has had a consulate in Asuncion since over 40 plus years to cater to its small community, while having embassies in Brazil and Argentina. Also, please note that many major countries dont even have embassies in Paraguay due to its small size and instead opt to have non-resident ambassadors. If there are any concerns regarding the quality of the article, then a better purpose can be served by requesting to "edit" the page rather then "deleting" the page.Whoisthebest123 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — Whoisthebest123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

coverage in third party sources in the main consideration as per WP:GNG not length of time of existence of a consulate to serve a small community. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt is in a different continent and in fact several thousand kms from Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge you know you don't need to send articles to AfD if you trim and merge into the relevant articles. This is an example of an article which can clearly and easily be merged.--TM 06:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

or easily deleted for the lack of coverage. Information such as non resident embassies or less than $3M worth of trade is hardly worth merging. You need meaningful content. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I've found a more information with a google search. This 2005 articles goes into great detail of the newly forming relations. LibStar, I think the biggest problem is that you think relations need to be substantial, when, according to Wikipedia, they do not. They just need multiple (not a dozen either), reliable, independent sources covering the topic. With that being said, I am going to merge the relevant content because it makes no sense to delete this information completely.--TM 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relations don't have to be substantial but have to subject of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the user Whoisthebest123 has copy-pasted my Keep arguments from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malta%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations_(3rd_nomination) page. Admins please do take due notice to this fact. I do not have any association whatsoever with the user Whoisthebest123. (Jalal0 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed! I was growing a bit suspicious. Anyways, a sincere thank you for being honest and clearing away any doubts :) Mar4d (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is interesting how Whoisthebest123 (talk · contribs) knew how to go there without editing any other article. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well very honestly speaking, it would be indeed interesting for me as well to know this. I am rather growing suspicious of someone hatching a conspiracy against my Jalal0 (talk · contribs) account to get deleted, by creating a username Whoisthebest123 (talk · contribs) and behaving in a way so as to emulate Jalal0 (talk · contribs). Thats why I decided to rush ahead and come with clean hands. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep All the content in this page has been cited. I would however like to see reference for 1000 Pakistanis living in Paraguay. (Jalal0 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

content being cited and verified is not the same as being notable. There is in fact no significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep Not as much meat as in the other relations articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Appologies to Jalal0, no consipiracy is being hatched against you, I merely found your argument used in another dispute particularly useful for this article. Suggestion to merge this article seems a good option, as through the sources already provided foreign relations have been proven. Whoisthebest123 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a new user here (presumably), I suppose you would need to know that "merge" means transferring all the information this article currently holds into Foreign relations of Pakistan and Foreign relations of Paraguay; Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The provided sources do make adequate mention of whatever relations the two share; though I wouldn't oppose if merge is the final decision. Mar4d (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what relations? Whatever relations happens in the context of Mercosur. Have you found any coverage covering bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's no evidence of a notable relationship in the article, and the existence of such a relationship seems pretty unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the article's own admission, if most of the two countries' relations are through a third party organization, then there is hardly anything notable about the relations between the two on their own. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie Chui

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

Non-notable reporter. A Google search found nothing that can be called reliable and has anything to say on her. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Nothing that can be called reliable" is overstating the case --- e.g. here's a 300-word Apple Daily article about her [13]. That said, the amount of coverage even in Chinese is insufficient to pass WP:BIO. cab (call) 07:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrase: "nothing in the Latin alphabet that can be called reliable"... Drmies (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes it's a G4. Almost the same article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Benardo

AfDs for this article:

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

Same person who AFDed it the first time tried to renominate but simply reopened the last nomination instead of filing a new one. Questionable notability per WP:BAND; done nothing of note since a reality show win. Not sure if this is a G4. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Kelly

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this article passes notability criteria, and I am tempted to believe that the only reason it was created is because he was linked to Palin and the Tea Party. I don't see anything worthwhile to merit an article, as neither his military career, nor his political stance have been noted (outside Fox News). Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected former candidate. Although there is coverage in RS, I believe this would fall under WP:BLP1E. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As his candidacy was unsuccessful, he fails our notability guideline for politicians and there is no other claim of notability. The article can be recreated if he is elected to a significant office in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails our notability requirements for politicians. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual is more noteworthy now, since the Tucson shooting, than he was as a candidate, in part because of his campaign event with an assault rifle, as described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishboyfay (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the election, he acquired additional notability because (1) in the wake of the shooting of Giffords, there was wide reporting of his campaign event at which he had invited people to shoot an M16 to help him "get on target for victory"; and (2) with Giffords incapacitated, he was further criticized for what struck some as unseemly haste in wanting to run for the seat again. [14] These factors distinguish him from the usual unsuccessful candidate. JamesMLane t c 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent events have made him sufficiently notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E, so far. Any information we have about this person belongs in United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Arizona,_2010#District_8. If that article gets too long, recreate this one. Shii (tock) 12:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Stephen, CSD A7. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony G (producer)

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

Non-notable; only hits on Google were about a like-named poker player and not the record producer. The only third-party source on subject's page is a portion of a ten-year old article from a pay-archive site. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 03:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. N. Haynes

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

Notability has not been established. While a Presiding Bishop would presumably be notable, an Assistant is not necessarily so. St Anselm (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you mean by "notability has not been established"? We have many badly written articles on subjects that are notable. We can't go just on the article by itself, especially one that is almost 8 years old when wikipedia was a Wild West. Performing my own search, I find minor mentions of the guy in church appointment type references in Dallas area newspapers, but nothing significant. Thus deletion is probably appropriate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, notability has not been established, and as I have tried and failed to find any sources that would do so, this should probably go.--Korruski^Talk 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that the Church of God in Christ is a major denomination. If so, an assistant presiding bishop is probably notable. However, it is always difficult to judge a stub. I would be happier if the title had his full names. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe there is any automatic notability for an assistant bishop, and there is nothing at Google News to support notability of this individual. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe there is inherent notability in this position, and it lacks other evidence indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 White House intruders. clear and obvious consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Pickett

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

A classic example of WP:BIO1E. He is already listed with a citation at White House intruders and does not reach the notability standard to justify a separate article. St Anselm (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination Changing suggestion to redirect to White House intruders. My76 Strat 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not news, BLP1E, etc etc... no way this guy is going to be notable in the near future unless he manages to actually shoot someone. Hairhorn (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: didn't realize he was already listed when I recommended a merge. Redirect per below.AerobicFox (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White House intruders. Remotely plausible search term, plus redirects are cheap. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White House intruders. Not enough for a stand-alone article, and, as mentioned above, the subject's name is a plausible search term. Location (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Simmons

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

The article says that he became world famous, but I can't find any evidence of this. And famous is not the same as notable. St Anselm (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without specifics on the "famous" claim, it's essentially meaningless. It doesn't even specify what he was famous for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This brand-new article comes from a brand new editor, and every edit of this editor is suspicious BLP monkey bullshit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My76 Strat 04:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, we do know he probably had heated floor tiles in his bathroom... ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Christians

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

The start of a totally unmanageable, near-endless list of people connected to each other only tenuously. Given the proportion of people ion Wales who profess Christianity as their religion, we could be looking at upward of three quarters of a million names. Currently, it has twelve. Seems as useful as a list of Italians born on a Tuesday. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More of the list inanity that plagues the project. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category may be useful, a list is not useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been able to think of any useful purpose which this list could serve. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Being a Welsh Christian is not notable by itself, seeing as how many Christians there are in Wales. JIP | Talk 06:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Category under the usual criteria might be useful. If anything Mary Jones is clearly missing. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another totally unecessary list based on an intersection between two subjective and hard-to-verify attributes.--Korruski^Talk 12:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crazy that it has been hanging on since 2005. Wickedjacob (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is next? A list of Israeli Jews? This one is even more difficult because it is very hard to define/determine if someone is "really" a Christian. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This started as Welsh Christian figures, with an introduction specific to some bloke called John B.E. Thomas alone, but then that was moved to a separate article and the article was renamed so that it doesn't claim to list "Christian figures", only "Christians". JIP | Talk 19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now a list of notable John Thomases would be something totally different (&Welsh) :-) Agathoclea (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand what you were talking about, so I checked the John Thomas page, and found out what the point was. Apparently British people have very strange idioms. As a non-British person myself, I'd rather not get into intra-British arguments about this. JIP | Talk 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did not mean the idiom (of which there is at least another not mentioned in that disambig article) but the shear number of possible entries. If I counted right on the page you found it was 44. Agathoclea (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- One merit of a list article is that it allows us to have redlinks for articles that are needed. However, this list is much too indiscriminate to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one or more focused lists, like, for instance, a list of Welshmen/women who were notably leaders of Christian groups, saints or otherwise included in liturgical calendars, etc., might be useful, but this one is at least on the verge of unmanagable. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about List of Welsh Americans, which was resoundly kept at AfD? List of Welsh Christians would seem more narrow than List of Welsh people. OTOH, Anglo-Welsh, Greco-Welsh, and Welsh-Jamaican were deleted. Then there's List of Welsh inventors, List of Welsh writers, Welsh Chilean (mostly a list)-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those are far more focussed lists, and several you mention are of a long-established double-ethnicity type. It would be easy to find a list of notable inventors or writers born in Wales, but the profession of a faith is often not a defining characteristic of a person's notability to the same extent. In particular, in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion, it would be more of a "default" situation. We don't usually list such defaults (consider the half-joking "Israeli Jews" list mentioned above). A small minority of Americans and Chileans are of Welsh descent; a small minority of Welsh people are inventors or writers. But a very large number of Welsh people are Christian - certainly far too many for any such list to be viable or useful. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add redirect to List_of_Welsh_people#Religious_figures. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10. Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jochem Zuijderwijk

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

This article may be a hoax. It certainly runs into BLP problems, and the lack of reliable sources doesn't help. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a hoax. It's an attack page. It has now been listed for CSD db-attack and blanked. --Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Sagginario

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD closed as no consensus due to minimal participation and very weak !votes after two weeks. Appears decently sourced at first, but a look at the sources shows that none meet WP:RS

Two dead links from ishinelive.com, a Christian music website with no authorship credits, proof of fact-checking and verifiability, etc.
Two press releases.
Two gossip sites that don't look reliable either.

There are assertations of notability through appearances on Disney compilation albums and a win in a dubiously-notable contest, but there just isn't enough here for her to meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete won a non-especially-notable contest but doesn't seem to have been able to translate that into a real music career. Possibly a WP:TOOSOON case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karlton Watson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Karlton Watson

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

A case of WP:CRYSTAL. Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Was a contested PROD with the contester saying that he is a promising (but injured for almost 2 years) player who will soon make a big impact. Ravendrop (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A classic WP:TOOSOON case. If he makes a "big impact" when he recovers from his injuries, he can get an article then. In the meantime, he's simply promising, and promise does not an article make. Zachlipton (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant guidelines for notability. Re-create if and when he makes this alleged big impact, and not before -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Engine

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

A game engine. The author removed my prod with the comment "it's been, what, about an hour? Give it some time, yeesh". It has now had more than 24 hours and no evidence of notability has appeared. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, finding evidence of notability or lack thereof is part of the nomination process too. The nomination doesn't assert that its not notable, just that "no evidence of notability has appeared" in the article in 24 hours of existence. That's not a valid nomination the way I understand things. When I googled "creation engine" and "bethesda" I saw lots of links that appear to discuss it, but I am not a software or gaming guru and can't really judge how good those sources are but I know that non-mainstream sources often seem to sustain articles of this type. Assuming the nomination here is clarified and it was to be found that a separate article is not needed, this article could just be redirected/merged to Bethesda Softworks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bethesda Softworks. I don't see much in the way of substantial coverage and don't see why this can't be addressed in a paragraph or two in Bethesda Softworks about their engine. In the event that it becomes sufficiently popular and the section becomes unwieldy, it can split back into its own article, but in the meantime, this doesn't satisfy WP:N.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Speedy Keep~~ - the four reliable sources provided each given plenty of significant coverage. It appears another user added three of the four sources after the nomination, so I don't think this was in bad faith. --Teancum (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - changed per comments by CR4ZE below. --Teancum (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development. Considering the size of the article, and the fact that the Creation Engine is only being used for one game which hasn't been released yet, there's no notability. When the Development section of Skyrim grows large enough, then there can be discussion for a split. CR4ZE (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Creation Engine has essentially been announced less than a month ago as a brand new engine soon to become VERY notable, right now not much is known about this engine, simply because it is under heavy (secret) development and should be fully unveiled when The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is released. I also don't think it is right to merge this with The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development article unless you are planning on separating it again after numerous "notable" games such as the next Fallout game are released by Bethesda Softworks using this engine.ExilorX (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - isn't it a little WP:CRYSTAL-ish to just assume they hang on to this engine for multiple games? Sure, its likely, but the fact is that there is no way to prove that right now. I don't have any issue whatsoever with splitting it out later should it become as notable as Gamebryo, but that won't happen until at least 2-3 games are released using it. Besides, all of this info needs inclusion in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development anyway, since it's the first game using the engine. The history will always be in Creation Engine, so it can easily be split back off when the time comes, but for now it can't stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a source in the article that includes one of the developers clearly stating that the engine will be used in future games produced by Bethesda Studios. --Dorsal Axe 18:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Teancum. While it will probably become notable there need to be more sources before a stand-alone article is justified. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Huffaker

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

I don't know the notability of monster truck drivers, but all the sourcing I found on google are passing mentions about the trucks he drives and such. For me he fails WP:BIO Delete Secret ^account 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That he passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG is supported by [15] and [16] Kugao (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kugao has provided two links. One is a passing mention. The other doesn't actually mention him at all. GNews provides several hits for the name. They're mostly behind paywalls, but the previews tend to read something like "Grave Digger will be driven by Pablo Huffaker". Passing mentions are not what the GNG asks for. I don't get the impression participating in Monster Jam passes our criteria for professional motorsports, either. » scoops “5x5„ 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kugao, are you even trying here? Please read the GNG and other notability criteria, which say explicitly that for a source to qualify, it must discuss the subject in "significant detail." This isn't the first suspect AfD vote this past week, and it isn't the first dozenth. Ravenswing 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:WereSpielChequers (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cypert

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

Small city mayor fails notability standards Eeekster (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps by Eekster's standards, the new mayor of the city of Cabot is non-notable. It's debatable. However, I note that this is the largest city in its county, and with a fast-growing population of over 30,000, it is a community of significance, and with a history of note. Its mayors are notable, as are mayors of "small" but notable, regionally significant cities and similar cities worldwide. See WP:POLITICIAN for the relevant guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A population of 30,000 isn't much of a city. Eeekster (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Sonoma, California is one of California's oldest, most historic and most notable cities. Its population is just over 9000 people. Cities of 30,000 people are just as much cities as those of a million. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only local coverage of his Jan. 2011 election (and not much of that). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG, and he certainly doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Cabot does not qualify as a major metropolitan city: it's a suburb per its own article. I don't see much reason to believe that it is of "regional importance" either. The fact that the county line happens to be set such that it is the largest city in its county does not confer notability, especially as Arkansas has 75 counties. It's the 20th largest city in the state (again, per Cabot, Arkansas). Certainly, it looks like a fine place and no one disputes its status as a city, but its mayor is not inherently notable just for being mayor of Cabot, and I see no evidence that this particular mayor has generated substantial coverage of his own to confer notability. Zachlipton (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Texas alone has over a hundred counties with a population of 10,000 or less; the notion that the mayor of a county seat is notable by that fact alone is farcical. "Community of significance" and "history of note" are purely subjective appellations. Ravenswing 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheWorld Browser

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

Non-notable software. Was unable to locate coverage in reliable sources. Prod contested in 2009 but linked Google News archive search shows no reliable sources. Pnm (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I cannot agree that TheWorld Browser is not notable, especially in China. Just look at the Google Trends. Their BBS has 320000 registered users. TheWorld Browser is more popular than K-Meleon or AOL Explorer, or even SeaMonkey, according to Softpedia. TheWorld Chrome is under active and rapid development, and it is very promising since it is in English and Chinese. So don't delete it!

--77.236.26.56 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is, in fact, notable, then there should be some reliable sources saying so. Anyone advocating to Keep this article has a few more days to find some. Ravenswing 17:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: If TheWorld Browser is not notable, than what can you say about GreenBrowser, UltraBrowser, SlimBrowser, NetCaptor, NeoPlanet, SeaMonkey and many more listed here? They all have their article. And TheWorld is even more popular than them (see Softpedia above or Download.com). TheWorld is very popular in China, just look at these sources (translated by Google): Sky CN (ranked after IE, Maxthon and Tencent Traveler), [17], [18], [19] and Google Trends for TheWorld Browser, Maxthon Browser an Firefox in China. It's enough against deleting the article, you'd rather enhance it. --83.5.159.187 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: your first 3 sentences: Other "worse" articles existing does not justify an article's existence, And Download stats ≠ notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are another reliable sources: Baidu Encyclopedia (translated), Software Informer, WayBeta, BetaNews, TechBeta... Need more? --83.26.5.194 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's good that you bring so many references here, but why don't you integrated them into the article? mabdul 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the above sources appear to meet WP:RS: 1, 2, 3, Baidu Baike (tertiary), Software Informer, WayBeta, BetaNews, TechBeta. How about something substantial printed in a newspaper or tech magazine? --Pnm (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Stasny

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

Previously the subject of an A7 speedy request, but importance was asserted by way of him premiering at the Montreal World Film Festival. However, I couldn't find any nontrivial coverage for him. This guy looks like he'll merit an article soon, but to my mind, he doesn't just yet. Blueboy 96 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sharing my information about Aksel. Here are the missing links:
world premiere party @ wff montreal:
http://www.ffm-montreal.org/cgi-bin/ffmfilms?Action=fest_detail&num=27565&lng=EN
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53478449@N04/4968530472/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53478449@N04/4968770502/
article about aksel:
http://blog.nyfa.edu/post/2596733054/aksel-stasny-25
latest photo award:
http://pfmagazine.com/wp-content/plugins/p-gallery/index.php?level=picture&id=4565
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fada.inasch (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment. Question: I hadn't previously heard of "Best of Photography" (at this website). Should I have? Comment: When I make a list of exhibitions, I source each. I might be interested by Stasny-independent sourcing for each of these exhibitions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of Photography at PF Magazine[20] is an annual publication of the winners and finalists of Photographer’s Forum’s Spring Photography Contest, going back to at least 2001. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'd read as much. To rephrase the question, is Photographer’s Forum’s Spring Photography Contest something I should have heard of? -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you were a photographer, perhaps yes... and we need to consider that the publication and its awards do seem to themselves recieve coverage in multiple independent reliable source.[21] Published by Serbin Communications,[22] they seem to be a decent source for photography-related topics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - While there's very often a camera in my bag or in my hand I don't presume to be a photographer. I'm also neither in nor from the US. I therefore may have got the wrong idea. However, something looks wrong. While plenty of books not distributed by Amazon, etc, are noteworthy, this company is based in the US and its books are titled in such a way that I'd expect mass-market appeal. Yet neither its magazine nor recent issues of its book series are distributed by Amazon. Clearly Serbin has convinced Sigma and Nikon of its value, so I don't rush to dismiss the whole venture. However, I'm unimpressed by the list of Google News hits: they seem to be obscure mentions of obscure figures. I'd like to see one or two better known photographers saying that their big break was via this prize ... but actually I think that this is unlikely, because what little I see suggests stock photography (the attractive but forgettable work reproduced in calendars, etc). As for coverage in WP, it seems to have been mentioned in a total of one (1) other article: Darilyn Rowan (written by Regina fine arts, whose other contributions have been limited to the redirect Darilyn Regina Rowan; and Reginarowan, who hasn't contributed to anything else). -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. That Photographer's Forum magazine is notable I see no reason to question. That a guy was a finalist in a photography competition held by that magazine confers zero notability; notability is not inherited. First off, no evidence has been proffered that this is recognized throughout the photography field as a preeminent award, such as is necessary to confer notability; the link Michael provided shed zero light on the subject. Secondly, we confer notability not to runners-up, but to winners, for anything much short of Academy Awards or Olympic medals. We can assume nothing, so unless evidence turns up that this fellow passes the GNG ... Ravenswing 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Analysis by DGG was compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The operator theory

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

Article reads like an essay promoting what looks like a non-notable fringe theory. About half of the references are by Jagers op Akkerhuis, the creator of the theory; as for the rest, I somehow doubt that they actually mention the "operator theory". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may well be a fringe theory, it lies within a field that is notable for consisting primarily of fringe theories. The article is obviously written by Jagers op Akkerhuis, and as such requires substantial cleanup and NPOV-fixing. That said, it doesn't take a lot of searching online to discover that this theory has been referenced and disputed a bit. Examples include The Issue of “Closure” in Jagers op Akkerhuis’s Operator Theory by Nico M. van Straalen, What Is Life? A New Theory by Clara Moskowitz, Astrobiology Magazine, Evolution's Next Step by Smaranda Biliuti and Operator Hierarchy - Next Step In Evolution A Technical Life Form That Passes On Knowledge And Experience?. There's an interestingly sketchy article at the University of Wageningen, Life is about organization. Further, if you were to look into the references (I'm assuming you're familiar with the field since you're making a value judgement on the article), you'd see that this theory strongly resonates with Metasystem transition theory, one of the primary proponents of which, Francis Heylighen, is cited in the references for an article about closure complexity. The connection is strong. There are many problems with the theory itself, it seems to be overstretching a simple idea, trying to connect to many others, but that doesn't make it invalid as an article. Just fix it up. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis: Dear Editors of WIKI, I have very much appreciated your constructive contributions. I have now edited the article according to NPOV (This was new for me. I learned a lot. Hope it is OK now). The contribution is the result of 17 years of development and a second PhD. I aim at creating an absolutely unbiased WIKI that has an outstanding scientific content and that gives everyone the opportunity to profit from the results of a lifetime of work in this field of science (I am 51, still many years left to do beautiful things ;->). Hope you agree that the quality of this page is best safeguarded when I write it myself. It will be most interesting to get the reactions of your science editors. WIKI is new for me, but so far I you have impressed me! Kind regards, Gerard Jagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jager008 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From what I can tell, the fact that so many people have criticized this theory means that it's worthy of attention and criticism, and is therefore notable. However, it most likely needs WP:NPOV attention from subject matter experts now, as the article has now been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, as discussed above. Zachlipton (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are sources the article does a disservice to Wikipedia. It is clearly a fringe theory yet it is presented as if its claims were true. No amount of "clean-up" and "improve" will be helpful since those into the "theory" will be the only ones interested. Borock (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borock, it would be my pleasure to discuss factual aspects of the theory with you. In order to have a scientific discussion about your remarks, it would be very usefull if you would be willing to indicate more specifically which statements you talk about when you state that they cannot be improved or which statements you consider as to be of interest to a limited group of people only. Thank you in advance.Jager008 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shows what I was talking about. You need to present your theory someplace where it can be peer reviewed. An encyclopedia is not the place for that. Borock (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borock, the theory has been peer reviewed many times. Here I only present a short outline of internationally and peer reviewed published work. The various aspects of the theory have been published in five separate peer reviewed papers and the entire work has been the subject of my second PhD which was judged by Prof. Henk Barendregt (Spinoza prize winner, mathematics), Prof. Nico van Straalen (ecotoxicology), Prof. Francis Heylighen (system scientist and particle physicist), Prof. Henk Siepel (ecologist), Prof. Diedel Kornet (ecologist), dr. Luca Consoli (particle physicist) and Prof. Hub Zwart (geneticist, philosopher). So there is no need to suggest that this theory would require more or new peer review. Kind regards, Gerard Jagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jager008 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV original research essay; insufficient evidence of notability; main author has clear COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors of Wikipedia, in relation to notability, the below links provide a selection of internet sources indicating third parties that have taken interest and/or have discussed various aspects of the operator theory. The list covers a range of languages and countries.

General: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/593468/2001/09/26/Einstein-zal-niet-meer-dood-gaan.dhtml http://www.sense.ecs.soton.ac.uk/levels-of-selection-workshop-2009/abstracts/Jagers.pdf http://www.wur.nl/uk/newsagenda/archive/news/2010/Life_is_about_organization.htm http://www.bionieuws.nl/artikel.php?id=5487&zoek=evolutie

Television broadcast in which the operator theory plays an important role: http://weblogs.vpro.nl/labyrint/2011/01/11/technologische-evolutie/

Definition of life based on the operator theory: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3400/bringing-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98life%E2%80%99-to-closure reproduced and discussed e.g. in: http://www.space.com/7898-life-theory.html http://www.physorg.com/news185126689.html http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bringing_The_Definition_Of_Life_To_Closure_999.html http://universitam.com/academicos/?tag=gerard-jagers-op-akkerhuis http://iscfuture.org/documents.html http://www.sciencemagnews.com/tag/evolution http://sixooninele.blogspot.com/2010/04/apa-itu-kehidupan-dan-ini-teorinya.html?showComment=1271506809951 http://mithomail.blog.de/2010/02/26/neue-definition-leben-8077345/ http://wenzelsopinion.de/?p=286 http://www.losarchivosdelatierra.com/inicio/2010/9/8/el-proximo-paso-en-la-evolucion-una-forma-de-vida-tecnica-qu.html http://apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-alive-okay-now-tell-me-what-alive.html http://echoesofapollo.com/2010/02/14/latest-space-news-2010-02-12/ http://grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blogspot.com/2010/02/biologe-prasentiert-neue-definition-fur.html

The article that the radboud university has published in relation to the PhH has been reproduced and/or discussed in e.g.: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/operator_hierarchy_next_step_evolution_technical_life_form_passes_knowledge_and_experience http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100903072649.htm http://news.softpedia.com/news/Evolution-s-Next-Step-Passing-Knowledge-and-Experience-154993.shtml http://desertfalconrising.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=12&Itemid=62&limitstart=14 http://www.silobreaker.com/operator-hierarchy--next-step-in-evolution-a-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience-5_2263700257948827648 http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=84227&CultureCode=en http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13783861.aspx http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/article/27377/A-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience.aspx http://www.messagetoeagle.com/index.php/biology/53-evolution-news/61-next-step-in-evolution-a-technical-life-form-that-passes-on-knowledge-and-experience http://www.computescotland.com/building-our-evolutionary-successors-3630.php http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=84227&CultureCode=en

In relation to POV: the present wikipedia article contains no original work, but refers for all its statements to published and reviewed scientific publications. But maybe I do not understand the POV remark well enough to provide a proper answer?

Hope that a solution can be found for the COI topic, for which Gandalf61 has been so kind to suggested a potential direction for a solution that I hope to hear more from soon.

Kind regards, Jager008 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article is has issues, it is definitely notable and expanded enough to be worth keeping. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete While at least one of the articles by him on it has been published in a very good peer-reviewed journal, "Analysing hierarchy in the organization of biological and physical systems" Jagers Op Akkerhuis, G.A.J.M. 2008 Biological Reviews 83 (1), pp. 1-12, Scopus shows a total of 3 citations combined for it and all other of his articles on the theory DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, indeed my publications on other subjects have been cited more frequently than those concerning the operator theory. This suggests the effect of publication year (my older papers being cited more frequently), but more importantly, researchers primarily choose references related to their own research topics, being generally more limited in scope. A broader scope makes a theory more notable (in principle) but less "citable". So citations may in such cases not be an optimal evaluation tool. As this involves your profession, I hope you can agree with this. Your talk-site was very helpful in indicating that “The inclusion criterion is being important enough to be in an encyclopedia, in whatever way determined”. It remains in this context valuable that the subject raised such broad public interest as indicated by the above links. I further suggest that it is of ecyclopedic importance that the operator theory finally offers simple solutions to long-standing sicentific questions such as the definition of life and the future of evolution. Finally, it may add to the notability of this theory that it was the subject of a second PhD. I look forward to your response. Jager008 (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard_Scorer

AfDs for this article:

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

Hang-on I would like to inform Wikipedia that changes to the page have been done taking into consideration all of the points that were made. I feel that this page now meets the same type of layout, content, look as other solicitors. Please review and be kind. Thank you. Talk:Richard_Scorer isfutile:P 11:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STILL DELETE I've looked at this again. The wikify elements have been improved. However the NPOV and Notability issues still remain. Also, the addition of various third party links appear to make this page even more of an advertisement/resume than the previous edit. Put simply I do not believe the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a wiki page. isfutile:P (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with reasoning here: Talk:Richard_Scorer isfutile:P (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is a POV disaster and needs major work. And most of the links found are simply of the type "Mr. Scorer, counsel for the plaintiff, said..." But some articles are more substantially about him, for example this from the Times. And others quote him extensively as an expert or public figure, rather than as a participant in a case, for example this from the Guardian. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a self promoting CV which is neither notable or encyclopaedic. Wiki is not a Who's Who guide for lawyers and there is nothing particularly notable in this entry. The language is all highly suspect - "he" did this etc - the sources do not back up the statements - they actually suggest his lawfirm and clients brought the cases and he acted as a spokesperson to the press - therefore the sources do not back up the grandiose claims or provide notability for this individual. Possibly at a push a brief entry in Pannone LLP Solicitors , if that, but not a separate page. Herkuleshippo (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason it now says "he" did this, "he" did that, is that I converted all of those sentences from saying "Richard did this," "Richard did that." In its original form it brought to mind Melanie's Law, which states that articles which refer to the subject by first name instead of last name almost always turn out to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vebnet Limited

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

Delete Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a global provider of employee benefits and reward solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Standard Life, as they seem to own Vebnet. Zachlipton (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cléston

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

Although he appears to be a pop culture figure in Brazil, I can find no references to him in English language press. Not notable for the Enlgish Language Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no requirement that reliable sources be in English. Sources in English are preferable when equal to sources in other languages. For a Brazilian topic, reliable sources in Portugese are fine. This is an English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one verify that veracity of the sources (or in this case, find the sources for an unreferenced article in the first place)? I did try a Google translation of one promising site and it turned out to be a spoof site with no real information.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Response I am not arguing "keep" here. Google Translate is a start. You could mention the article on WikiProject Brazil, where is may be noticed by editors with the language skills and interest to help out. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relatively new editor- how do I go about mentioning this article on the Brazil WikiProject? Thanks!Wkharrisjr (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything of substance in Portuguese either. Fails WP:N in any language. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The only sources provided by this article are non-independent ones, and the corresponding article at the Portuguese Wikipedia pt:DJ Cléston doesn't have much more. The subject may well garner more media coverage in the future for his musical activities, in which case the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Life (Fefe Dobson song)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC Epass (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:MUSIC, and were created by the same user.:

Delete all for failing notability per WP:NSONGS — no sources, very short articles and the (Fefe Dobson song) part precludes any usefulness as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clemmie Hooton

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. 1 gnews hits [23] and no evidence of multiple significant roles. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on, don't you know "Laura's Star"? I've added a couple of links including the one you found and the filmography. This would be too much effort for me to read and reformat the article (I'm just exploring AfD and I don't know anything about the matter) but I hope that'll be enough. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, I read it and divided the text into paragraphs for readability. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT requires mulitple significant roles. Her other roles seem minor. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indeed, Laura's Star is a notable production. However, notability is not inherited. As LibStar correctly states, Hooton either has to pass the GNG or the notability criteria of WP:ENT. There is no evidence she does either. Ravenswing 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Short career and lack of coverage indcate that this individual has not yet attained a level of notability required for an independent article. Her theater work can be verified,[24][25] but WP:ENT and WP:GNG require more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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