Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 22

< 21 January	23 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Riordan

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

No indication that the person meets WP:BIO. Sources in the articles are papers describing processes which don't really indicate any significance for the subject. The article was apparently written with a close conflict of interest and does little more than assert the expertise and importance of the subject who, near as I can tell, is in the business of selling Vitamin C as a cancer cure. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely anything has changed since the author created it and it's a conflict of interest according to the template. WAYNESLAM 22:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest and questionable claims with lack of reliable sources. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest, not a real doctor. --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Some info can be found on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/dxq5s/spinal_cord_injury_patient_10_years_after_injury/c13quig . AFD was started based on info on reddit. We should make sure this is doublechecked either way before we AFD on the basis of what is said on an internet news aggregation site. (and of course it's good that someone spotted this there) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the onus is on the article to provide sufficient coverage and reliable sources in order to remain, rather than it being the job of the AfD entry to come up with evidence: the article in its present and past states have not given sufficient indication of notability, or included reliable sources. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm pointing out is that this action started on the basis of off-wiki discussion. That's an important piece of information. When that happens, you need to be extra careful, because off-wiki discussions are not part of on-wiki consensus. In some ways things are fine, we should definitely listen to what people are telling us. In some ways it means we need to be careful, because we don't want to be unduly influenced. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the post on reddit and came over here to look at the article. What I found here was what led me to AfD the article. That is to say, the article is supported only by sources which do not directly reference the person or give any indication of his importance. The slant of the article is also problematic but not the primary concern. If the subject was notable enough to see detailed coverage than we could easily mitigate a POV problem. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling people about Reddit! I'm sick of all the noobs appearing. Tildae (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)— Tildae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think we should stop telling reddit about wikipedia. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anybody who developed a ground breaking cancer treatment is surely notable? Mp2100 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)— Mp2100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where is the coverage from reliable sources, or the scholarly articles on this ground-breaking treatment? SynergyBlades (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't meet WP:BIO. R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability, either through the company or the "unique treatment approach" claimed in the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established through WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:57, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubyra1n

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

Up and coming computer/phone application with no claim of notability. Article isn't even clear/certain if the tool was written by a notable hacker, although notability is not inherited. No references (has footnotes). A general Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nomination. v/r - T P 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although this may be true, the possibility that such a product may exist in the very near future is very great. Therefore, I believe it is not right to remove the article quite yet.T

Weak delete. This resulted in more Ghits than I expected, but..."a possible up-coming jailbreaking tool"??? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When this tool actually appears, than this article can be recreated. Safiel (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero third-party sources, WP:CRYSTAL. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "possible up-coming..." "if proven to be real..." "most likely will be..." "this IRC chat was later proved to be fake..." There is nothing solid here at all. Wikipedia is not for vague rumours. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 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) 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klickitat Street

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

While I am aware of the literary significance, that little blurb can be covered in the associated book article, and the Grant Park, Portland, Oregon article. The actual street is a very minor street that does not pass the WP:GNG on its own. Admrboltz (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notoriety of this street is very significant, as per the New York Times - "On Klickitat Street, Beverly Cleary Is Forever Ramona" and "To Think That It Happened on Klickitat Street" - and other reliable sources [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's interesting, I read those books many times as a kid and had no idea that was a real street. In any case delete, the real-world street is pretty clearly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes otherwise non-notable streets become famous for being associated with works of art.--Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Care The whole wikipedia thing has become so tedious. Everything that is posted is challenged somehow by someone. I found it interesting enough to write a short article; I'm sure that others have found it interesting as well. If you personally don't find it interesting, why not just IGNORE IT? I can't imagine the kind of person who trolls around tagging things they don't see worthy, just because they can. Years ago, I came up with the term "wikihawk" for someone who patrols wikipedia for things they disagree with or find "unworthy". I made an entry for it which was promptly deleted, instantly proving my point. It's devolved into a array of fiefdoms, complete with control freaks, power struggles and ego wars. You can do whatever you see fit. googuse (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not surprisingly, Klickitat Street is a tourist attraction referred to in many books about Portland [3] as well as being important within the fiction of Beverly Cleary. Hence, I think it meets the requirement in WP:FICTION of real and fictional world significance, more so than locations in most of our articles based on things found in TV and film. Easily more famous than "Grant Park", which ought to be a redirect to the street. Nice to see something that's based on those things called books. Mandsford 01:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact the street is associated with Beverly Cleary works, the street itself is just another city street. Dough 48 72 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on what others have said about news coverage, and it being tourist attraction. Dream Focus 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not explain how deletion, making this notable title a red link, would assist our readership. This article is currently viewed about twenty times a day on average - nearly once every hour. As we build upon Googuse's promising start to improve its content and linkage, we can expect even more traffic. This is our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— It is not just any old non-notable street. There is significant coverage from reliable sources, mostly newspapers in this case. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Mandsford. tedder (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is long LA Times article about the street in addition to the other sourcing already mentioned earlier. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been rescued. See also why I declined the prod Purple backpack89 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since nomination. SnottyWong ^spout 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the literary connection, and sufficient inline citations, I changed this article to class=start. This is a KEEPER to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now I know two things. The Muffin Man lives on Drury Lane and there's a category for things like this topic (Category:Visitor attractions in Portland, Oregon).[4] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:59, 28 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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Platte Avenue

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

Declined PROD. This street appears to be just a normal city street that fails the WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources have been added to the article since it was de-PRODed. Admrboltz (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete normal city street sums it up pretty well, I think. I must say "the site of the second most important junction of US 24 and Powers Boulevard" is one of the more lame attempts at a claim of notability in recent memory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it does seem like a major street in that city, does not seem to meet notability guidelines for its own article. Nothing stands out with a quick Google search, and no major news stories seem to be centered around it. Also appears to fail WikiProject U.S. Streets notability guidelines. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just an average city street. Dough 48 72 03:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per World Encyclopedia of Cities, this avenue forms a section of U.S. Route 24 in Colorado. Our editing policy is to retain alternate names as they assist navigation by our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a small section of Platte Avenue is US 24, which would make redirecting this a bad idea. Dough 48 72 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this is one of two major arteries in the second largest city in Colorado, it's well put together, it just needs improvement. Surprised there is an article about it, but it's not average.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There needs to be something about the named street itself, of which there is ultimately nothing per WP:GNG. The fact that US 24 uses this street for about a mile (hence why I can't endorse a redirect) seems to be what gives the intersection (and, as the article purports, the street) its "importance," and the article seems to run with it. But, "importance" based on what? AADT? (The article claims it is the fourth-busiest street in the city with an AADT of 46,000, but the source cited makes no comparison and gives a figure of 25,000.) Or the fact that there's an interchange? There doesn't seem to be any sourcing for that, and to say the entire street is important based on that borders on synthesis. It's hard to say that every named street that a numbered route utilizes gains notability by association, especially when such a short stretch of the street is the numbered route, and this appears to be a case of that. Some very basic information about the street's business association and public works projects that can be found for almost any "main street" in any city doesn't give much to work with... and ultimately, with no WP:RS, it's an article that says nothing more than that the view of the mountains is pretty, there are some businesses, some crimes, etc., and gives a list of intersections. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:52, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone is actually willing to undertake the effort of finding other homes for some of this content they can contact me and request userfication. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English movement

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

was nominated for speedy deletion, but fit into no speedy category. Some of group discussed are included in English nationalism; others would clearly not fit there. I wouldn't want to move it to English Reborn which I don't think is notable . Perhaps somebody can think of something positive to do, but I cannot. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be the positive move I think. The 'English movement' does not appear to be something widely covered by reliable sources, and the groups listed appear to be a largely unrelated collection of political groups, religious and folklore organisations and a few anti-Islamic hate groups. If any of the individual groups are notable they should have their own articles.--Michig (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable movement; no reliable sources appear in the article. If as fine a librarian as DGG can't find a source, it doesn't exist. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable refs Someone65 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Modern English nationalism; merge some of the material in English nationalism#Modern here and make this a "main" article for that section. This article reviews what may be called "Englishism" and usefully links together a variety of comparatively disparate topics, in a rather better way than a mere list article would. I know we deplore "modern" in titles, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon, reacting to Welsh and Scottish nationalist movements. Unfortunately, some of the groups belong to the loony right. I am not suggesting merge as that would unbalance English nationalism which does not look a bad article at a quick glance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources for the name, no evidence that the listed organisations would seem themselves as connected. An OR & synth minefield best deleted. No evidence that it is a a phenomenon, let alone a reaction to Welsh and Scottish nationalism. Any referenced material can go to English nationalism, that can split if it becomes overlong. --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge some aspects of the article into other articles if and where relevant, whether they be religion / nationalism / folk articles. The movement does exist, though outside of the mainstream, and so lacks reliable sources - this was created before I had read WP:RS, and so I hold my hands up. Æthelred (talk) 20:14, 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. tedder (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gelyon

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

This drummer is not notable. Prod was declined because the article had previously been deleted via PROD. Coycan (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD blanked, retranscluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD listing was twice transcluded into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 21 page, but the AfD listing itself was mistakenly deleted rather than deleting the second transclusion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The article does not seem to indicate why its subject is important or significant, but a regular deletion might be the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs Someone65 (talk) 17:21, 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. Discussing a topic like this is no fun for anybody involved. Our emotions tell us that this boy "deserves" a page, but Wikipedia's policies cannot be allowed to be subject to our emotions. It also seems likely that the article's creator has a serious conflict of interest and has added unverified material that violates our policy on biographies of living persons, further muddying the waters. In the end the consensus here is in favor of deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Hogan

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

A very sad local event lacking international repercussions. Lacks GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to be more a memorial page rather than a encyclopedic entry. I have tried to make this more encyclopedic, but the author refuses to allow edits to the original article. Author also appears to have created/contributed to a number of web based memorial sites. ttonyb (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - bad case of WP:OWN. Agree it is an in-memoriam page. If anything it is the father who is more notable than the son (victim and subject of article). --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May Liam rest in peace. This is a very sad incident, indeed. However, Wikipedia isn't really the place for him. My condolences on the loss. --23 Benson (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Qworty (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I renamed the article and thus this AfD to Liam Hogan because the original title "Murder of..." is incorrect. The father was found not guilty of murder. The rename doesn't change this AfD in any way, but any admin who deletes the article should be sure to delete both articles (redirect and new) --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rename and re-write to focus on the father and the actions of him instead. Deletion is not the right option.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This story was all over the newswhen it happened and the trial that followed was also quite highly publicized and followd by news media sutch as Sky News and BBC news etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:BabbaQ does make a good point. If the event is notable enough, rewriting the article to make it not read like a memorial page would make a good point. --204.115.33.49 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD - nothing to stop you having a go at that while the AfD is still under consideration. It might persuade some (me included) to change their mind. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. as sad as his death is, WP does not hold articles for events that had media spikes. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not very mentionable. People die all the time from strange events such all this. I don't see what makes this child or his father notable. Alex³ (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deeply upsetting, but just another everyday tragedy. Didn't lead to legislation, or a war, or a museum or anything else of importance outside of this family and the parties involved.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:12, 30 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) 23:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giants Causeway (band)

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

Prod removed over 4 years ago. They are generally not notable and the band also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Mattg82 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gsearch was slightly affected by an Irish landmark of the same name, but I couldn't find much information about them except for the usual suspects. It doesn't help that the article was created nearly five years ago by a user that hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 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 List of films set in or about North Korea. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentary films about North Korea

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

Spammy, linkfarm. Very few entries are notable. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with List of films set in or about North Korea. I think that because it's North Korea, this really should have different attention than say....Cyprus or Belize. These films should get attention, especially since a lot of them are done by reputable organizations (National Geographic, PBS Frontline, BBC, etc), and I think a couple have even won some awards. The layout, however, is incredibly spammy, and I think merging the articles would change this quite a bit. --23 Benson (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of films set in or about North Korea. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Cortex

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

New journal, has not published even a single article. De-PRODded by article creator without any reason. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the very least a magazine has to be published before it is notable. Travelbird (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS to indicate why this unpublished journal is notable. The article itself looks like an attempt at publicity. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undergrad journal that has yet to even publish. Unsurtpsingly, I can find not significant coverage about this journal. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion (Animorphs)

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

This article fails Wikipedia:BK. All of the sources for this book are trivial, and mainly refer to the book series itself, not this individual book. There's no indication that this book is significant. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep first book in a notable, bestselling series. Merging some of these might be viable, but outright deletion is wholly inappropriate here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Wikipedia:BK, that's not a reason to keep this article. This book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, that are independent of the book itself. And where would you suggest this article be merged to, because I think that is an option. However, keeping it is not a good one. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you gathered that, as even a quick search turned up professional reviews and even some books. I'd say it passes 1,3, and 4 of the five WP:BK criteria easily, and even 5 to an extent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For all points; Quote: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria". That means, you have to prove that this particular book (not the series) has been the subject in schools etc. This book does not meet criterion #3 as it has not spawned any movie etc., and it's TV show is not considered notable by any means (let me point out, it doesn't even have the same name). It clearly doesn't pass point 5, not even Stephen King passes this criterion, as the author isn't really historically significant. Adding to what I have already stated, there aren't any sources that could help expand this article past a plot summary, or a short one sentence reception section that isn't helpful at all. I'd say this article fails Wikipedia:BK. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is "one or more of the following criteria", not all five or even a majority. - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I know. I just noticed that the previous debate on this subject failed to go into the first point in WP:BK in more detail. Still doesn't pass any of the five points as far as I know. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google News search shows reviews from multiple print sources, though behind pay walls. Without being able to see the actual text for the context of the reviews, it's difficult to determine how significant this coverage is. However, it is a book in a clearly notable series, and at the very least could be merged to the series article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some actual sources? They all appear to be trivial to me, and refer to the Animorphs series itself, rather than the actual book. And I quote: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." All of the sources that mention this book refer to the series, and thus do not pass this criteria. Also take look at WP:PLOT. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my !vote, these items are all behind pay walls and so it is difficult to assess the context to determine how significant the coverage is. So it is either keep or merge, but in any case, I see no good reason for a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can usually tell by the title or context (ie. the first paragraph) what the article is about. And again, I refer to WP:PLOT. This article only mentions the plot of the book and plot differences from the book and show. Surely that fits into WP:PLOT. I mean, the farthest this book can get in terms of expansion is maybe a one sentence reception section. A look at amazon reveals that this book itself has not received any reviews. The fact that you don't like the idea of this article being deleted or you think its not a good idea is not a reason for keeping it. And I just can't see any place this article can be merged to, please offer suggestions. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animorphs is the obvious merge target. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I sure hope you haven't nominated all of the other Animorphs books for deletion, too. Like others have said, this is the very first book in a popular book series that has had a significant effect on millions of readers, and there are multiple sources to prove this. Any effort to delete the articles on the Animorphs books is fueled by a dislike of or indifference towards the series. dogman15 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 28 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) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Meng

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

Is this celloist sufficiently notable? To be honest, I don't know since that's not my field, but a Google search does not yield obvious notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I will note that while this should not be a reason for deletion or non-deletion, I found the article while preparing for the eventuality of writing an article on a son of Yang Xingmi with the same name.) --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete the article certainly claims notability, no doubt about that, but without reliable sources to confirm even the basic points we can't simply assume it as truth, especially on a BLP. Significantly, none of the 3 links given actually checks out: the NYT link is behind a paywall but appears to be a review od a NWS concert rather than an article on Meng, the Fellows page is a 404, and the third link doesn't seem to mention Yang Meng at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to full delete based on possibility of hoax, as detailed below. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a classic up and coming musician - the article's lead says it all, "gaining increasing renown". He's not there yet, and there's so little known about him that can be verified, that it would be speculation to assert that he will make it big. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some digging around, and while there are mentions of Yang Meng here and there, there are also enough problems to raise significant doubts about the entry. I looked at the NWS site, and Yang Meng doesn't appear in the alumni section nor the current members. This may mean that they haven't updated it yet, or that they don't list all of the alumni, but it makes things trickier. Per Andrew Lenahan, above, he wasn't mentioned in the NYT article, and I managed to get the full version to check. The first Prokofiev International Competition, which Meng is listed as having won, is available here. The link to the list of competitors is broken, but it can be found in the Wayback Machine. The interesting bit is that it is a piano competition, not one that includes the cello, and the Chinese entrant that year was Tong Bo, not Yang Meng. Finally, a Yang Meng did compete in the 2000 American String Teachers' Association as a finalist, so that part seems accurate. However, Yang Meng was only a regional winner, so no notability can be attached to that. All up, there's a bit of a feel of a complex hoax here, with just enough valid material to make it feel real, combined with definitely false material (the first Prokofiev International Competition). It may not be a hoax, but even if it isn't there isn't enough to establish notability on the material that can be confirmed. - Bilby (talk) 00:36, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Silent Film

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

no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Originally deleted in October 2010 after a prod but recently reinstated as a disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Not much to say, typical non-notable band vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND - non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed one of the criteria of WP:BAND is if the band has had a song or songs added to the rotation of a national radio network. Their song "You Will Leave a Mark" has been in rotation on Sirius/XM's Alt Nation for about the last six months. Would that be enough to satisfy notability requirements? --Highway99 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, no. Internet radio and satellite radio are usually excluded from that criterion (or at least given considerably lesser weight) and unless a reliable sources has reported on the song being added to rotation claiming it is kind of pointless anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:27, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrejs Siņicins

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - If this page is deleted, please salt it, as it will be the seventh time this article has been deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He has in fact achieved quite alot for sutch a young player. Its weak keep for me. leaning more towards Keep than Delete if asked.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Article still fails GNG and ATHLETE. Multiple attempts to recreate article deleted by AfD. Jogurney (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing in a semi-pro league and appearing on youth squads does not seem to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - no improvements made since last deletion Spiderone 13:44, 28 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) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Steamer

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

Not a mainstream topic. Not everything said on the Daily Show is an actual term that is frequently used. WP:NEO — Timneu22 · talk 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should at least show up in Google News, if it's become a term in commentary. Yakushima (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Jon Stewart Show was cancelled long before The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ever said a word about Palin. A one time joke as far as I know, no evidence of any notability, lasting or otherwise.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GabrielF (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one-shot comedic use does not indicate notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:50, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Thackeray

Ray Thackeray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Dead links, links press releases, mere mentions -- I don't see enough for WP:GNG, but I might be missing something. Yakushima (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The edit summary for the article's creation says it all [5]. I've made all those inline external links into "references" to make explicit how poor they are. Most are completely irrelevant and don't even mention him, the remainder are press releases, trivial mentions or broken links which are no doubt similar. I can't find anything to supplement this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:N requirements.4meter4 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further work doesn't seem to be helping. As a sailor, fails WP:NSPORT. As an executive, quoted here and there but in press releases; only one RS [6], but it doesn't mention him, failing WP:N. Initial article creation is clearly with a WP:SPA.[7] If seeUthere could be established as a notable company, maybe he has a chance, but if there hasn't been an article for it in all this time, I'm doubtful there will ever be one. (Surprise me!) As an engineer, he wrote a paper that got cited a bit.[8] The article described his work as "seminal"; and a section of a book on quality engineering [9] was apparently adapted from an article he co-wrote, and the book got some good Amazon reviews [10] ... but OK, I'm stretching a little. I don't see WP:ACADEMIC. He was mentioned in one dead-linked source as having a patent, but I don't see WP:CREATIVE for engineer. A couple hours of work should have turned up more than this. Yakushima (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is improving. It has improved dramatically today. It should stay and be given more time to grow. Those are my few words. Give it time. Alex³ (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of those recent "dramatic" improvements are courtesy of yours truly, and the article has shrunk, not grown, in the process. As I point out above, I'm leaning more toward strengthening my delete vote, if anything, as a result of working to improve the article. Improvement as an article is somewhat orthogonal to notability, and notability is what needs to improve here, to clear WP:N. I'm improving the article only as a way to bring degree of notability into focus, as did Voceditenore, who voted delete after doing some extensive edits to help clarify the nature of sources (seemingly) cited (many of which did, indeed, turn out to be useless upon closer inspection). Can you substantiate your Keep vote with a citation to adequate WP:RS treatment of the subject? I haven't been able to find any. Will time tell? The article's been around since late 2006, and never got much better than your average corporate-site "About Us" capsule bio. Yakushima (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment The more I look, the more I suspect notability manufacturing by the article's originator. See the comment on my edit here [11], where the editor claimed Thackeray was "seminal" in introducing QFD to software[12], on the basis of an uncited paper at an obscure conference that is apparently organized by a company (GOAL/QPC) largely on its own behalf (see, e.g., [13]). See also the erstwhile claim of "lead inventor" on a (now withdrawn) patent with 20 "inventors", none of whom seemed able to meet the classic requirement that an invention be non-obvious.[14] He's also clearly not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER, with a resume consisting only of credits for bit parts in civic light opera. We've verified that Ray Thackeray is an unusually accomplished person both in his career and in his hobbies. But we're still pretty far from WP:N, I think. Yakushima (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply and Slight Delete I did notice all the work you have done improving it and I guess you would know a lot since you've been dealing with the article. I guess if it's not notable enough it should be deleted. Alex³ (talk) 14:51, 28 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) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brgr

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

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - creator removed prod tag, so it's being brought to AfD.. First Light (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy cited. No doubt it bears mention in hamburger, however. Yakushima (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a dictionary. It looks like this spelling is mainly, or only, used in online communications. If the information is kept this should be made clear. Borock (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is original research, it says so right in the last paragraph "...A recent web search finds...", also WP isn't a dictionary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to wiktionary 64.229.103.232 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:OR. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Not only WP:OR, but WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. And speedy, because for a dictionary definition it doesn't even have the advantage of being a word... -- BenTels (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being a real word is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but G3 is, and I'm not too sure it doesn't apply here. -- BenTels (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any reason to consider this vandalism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Dr.frog (talk) 05:37, 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. pretty clear consensus and since there seems to have been some socking thats enough justification to put this one to bed Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lap Dance Club

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

As far as I can determine, this is a Manhattan business which was closed after the owner plead guilty to running a prostitution ring from it. It was in the newspapers in New York, but I'm not convinced that this club really meets WP:ORG, or transcends the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No reasons given for not notable, and no showing that a Google search was done. User has only one edit which was dated Jan. 22, 2011 and no showing of any contributions. Articles involving the adult entertainment industry should not be treated with less consideration." FreedomFighter77 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely a case of WP:NOTNEWS, especially since the "controversial" part of the sting operation is not substantiated. Also, "worldwide media attention"? New York is not the world. Attampt at embellishment to create notability. -- BenTels (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, worldwide media attention, as evidenced by article from United Kingdom; if you do a google search, there are articles in Chinese, Russian and other languages; the term "controversial" has been deleted.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP, as the only assertable importance is due to the shutdown, and not from the existence of the business itself. Also a case of WP:NOTNEWS due to lack of anything substantive in terms of controversy, legal precedent, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to being shut down, the Club was rated by AskMen.com as the top gentlemen's club in the world. A reference to the Article has been added in. FYI, AskMe.com is considered the largest men's portal on the Internet.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a rating that is based on an undiscernable methodology from a website of dubious reliability is not an indicator of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The Article indicates that the Hot Lap Dance Club was rated by respected strip club industry websites as one of the top strip clubs in the United States (if not the world). The lawsuit by a customer over a dancer received worldwide media attention. The prostitution trial of the 2 dancers at the club was a rarity as most prostitution offenses are pleaded out to a minor offense. A criminal court Judge threw out the cases against both dancers and now one of the dancers is suing the City of New York for $5 million dollars. There are over 300 references to the "Hot Lap Dance Club" in a Google search and clearly the article meets standards for inclusion under WP:ORG as it is sufficiently sourced and independently notable.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — FreedomFighter77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. FreedomFighter77 has expanded the article significantly since the nomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several Wikipedia articles about legendary clubs in Manhattan that have closed down, including The Limelight, Billy's Topless, Plato's Retreat, Studio 54 and the St. Marks Bath House.FreedomFighter77 --(talk) 23:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete it appears to have continuing coverage only as tangentially related to the site where arrests occurred. the "sources" for the awards/ranking and the rankings/awards themselves are dubious at being those that would meet WP:N as significant industry awards - theres a billion and one ~~porn~~ men's lifestyle sites, and each and every one hands out "best of". Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many websites out there; however, you need to know which ones have clout. Askmen.com is universally accepted as the premier men's lifestyle portal and it has 15,000,000 readers a month. It has an Alexa traffic rank of 907, traffic rank in U.S. of 517, and 6,655 sites linking to it. In the strip club circuit, the two main strip club directories are www.TUSCL.com and www.StripClubList.com. In fact, they are both mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Strip Clubs in the section on "Top Clubs."

The continued coverage is not merely tangentialy related to the site, but have a direct bearing on the club and the dancers who worked there.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (bordering on weak delete). It comes down to the depth of coverage about the club and not events that happened at the club. While I think a commendable job has been done by FreedomFighter77 expanding the article, I'm not convinced that the club itself has met the hurdles of WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no website promotional materials that you would ordinarily find with an organization that fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG

Delete fails WP:ORG. desperate attempts to save and WP:BLUDGEON this AfD by single purpose editor Freedomfighter suggest a possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no specific comments by this Administrator to back-up their position that the Article be deleted, or even that shows that this Administrator has actually looked at the Article. FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, WP:NOTNEWS. After clean up efforts, it is still sourced to blogs, non-RS sites and user-generated sites for much of the information and still contains some original research and synthesis such as the prosecutor's "erroneous" use of a particular assertion. If stubbed via removal of all improperly sourced information, would be clearer than ever that we are dealing with WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011

Contrary to this Administator's comments, the sources are mostly all to original source documents such as newspaper articles and major websites that are completely independent of the article. I would suggest taking a closer look at these sources before you jump to conclusions. If it makes a difference, I can add some additional original sources.

However, valid point on "erroneous" which I changed to "qustionable assertion"FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been improved and there are more sources cited. However, I cannot afford to spend any more time on this article. If the consensus is to delete, then I would suggest deleting the article in its entiretyFreedomFighter77 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Question - Are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FreedomFighter77 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawline the same person? Lawline was the the creator and main editor of Hot Lap Dance Club. They got banned, then FreedomFighter77 popped up 2 days later and became the main editor.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate accusation and personal attack, especially since this User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobbyd2011 did not pop up until this Article was selected for deletion. See WP:OUTING (talk) FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking whether you are a sockpuppet hardly constitutes outing. Frankly, I'm curious too. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:NPA FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alphabet soup. Was that a "yes" or a "no"? Favonian (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA I have attempted to help out with editing an article and all I get are personal attacks. I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of sounds like a 'yes.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it matches Lawline's behavior in every aspect. I hear quacking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Standard WP:NOTNEWS. A club where people have sex with alleged prostitutes gets busted? Stop the presses! Facepalm Tarc (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So WP:NOTNEWS — a strip club that gets busted for also engaging in prostitution ≤ "dog bites man". First Light (talk) 05:43, 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) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twishite

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

Unremarkable books. No sources provided, article is probably created for promotional purposes. — Timneu22 · talk 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single title New Moan doesn't seem to be notable by itself. Yakushima (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear notable, Sadads (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to exist (?), but no significant coverage per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:56, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillanthropy

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, the word reeks of original research. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Two previous instances by the same author have been speedied—one of them because it was a shameless advertisement for this website, which appears to be responsible for inventing and marketing this neologism. Strong suspicion of coat rack. Favonian (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have relisted the discussion. For some reason, it was not included in the log when first created. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, origin is unsourceable and likely WP:COI, and possible coat rack spam attempt per Favonian. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 01:05, 29 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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three-way chess

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

This variant of chess is not notable. The source cited is about the author, not the variant. SyG (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chess variant#Chess with different boards. The article as is doesn't say much, but after a Gsearch, there really isn't much else to say. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. It is a recent invention and isn't in the encyclopedia of chess variants. I don't think it should be merged into chess variant because there are a couple thousand variants. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to three-handed chess, in that I can see "three way chess" as a more likely search term for the three player versions of the two-player game. Seriously, who the hell has three hands? The article reveals nothing "Three-way chess is a chess variant with rules invented by Richard Harshman. It is played by three players on a six-sided board with hexagonal cells." The website from threewaychess.org is just as uninformative, suggesting that nobody can explain how it works, and that it isn't notable enough that people are playing it. Like "Klingon Boggle", it would be of limited interest. Mandsford 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are several chess variations with three players. This article and three-handed chess are very different, so I don't think it should be redirected there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I wrote the article but has now moved the information (the little information there was) to Chess_variant#Multiplayer_variants (I hope that is ok?), so I suggest a redirect, until someone extends the three-way chess article beyond stub. The official rules of the game are here. — fnielsen (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As above, redirect to Chess Variant. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- œ ^™ 21:44, 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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Darwen

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

This article only references articles and books by the subject matter himself, leading to the suspicion that this is a vanity page. Not all academics deserve wikipedia pages, and this doesn't seem like one of them UKWikiGuy (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be influential/important enough for WP:BIO. Not much biographical information available, although I found one reference[15]. Peter E. James (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hugh Darwen co-authored several influential books and articles, and represented the UK and IBM at the ISO/IEC SQL committe. What else would be needed for notability?

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Books shows he's authored or co-authored a ton of database books. --CliffC (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable, appears to be a spurious nomination. References are supplied from a number of sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar [16] suggests that Darwen's works are being cited frequently elsewhere. The article could do with some work, but that is no grounds as such for deletion. (actually, I think this is symptomatic of the fact that even for a notoriously geek-ridden project like Wikipedia, the most interesting bio's rarely concern scientists etc. A science-based education rarely encourages good writing. If Darwen had published as widely in popular fiction, the article would probably be five times as long...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, or perhaps more a question. I'm having trouble finding material about him, has he been extensively noted? The discussion seems to center on what he's done, which seems backward. Notability isn't dependent on what he's written (or how often it's cited), but how extensively he's been written about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch!. Sadly, you may be right. By general standards of notability, Paris Hilton is probably more 'notable' than Steven Hawking. Now I'd never heard of Hugh Darwen before, and only have a rudimentary working knowledge of what a relational database is. Nevertheless, I think I can safely say they are more significant to daily life than the vacuous lives of 'celebrities', and Darwen seems on the face of it to show signs of notability in his field. Shouldn't that be the criteria we apply? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relational databases, depending who you ask, are either the greatest invention ever or a curse that should be done away with at once. (I tend to be between the two, but overall I find them quite useful, and have worked with them a good deal.) It's not uncommon, though, that people do excellent work but aren't themselves in the limelight. And I'm not even saying no material exists about him—sometimes with these types, you just have to dig a little deeper. I just don't like seeing subjective determinations being the order of the day, even when we might want to. The only objective way to answer the question is "Is X notable?" is "Well, how much has X been noted?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that general Wikipedia policy is a little more subtle than that. Even the most obscure species of flatworm gets its own article (entirely merited too in some cases: see penis fencing), but I doubt many of them pass the Paris Hilton test. I'll suggest that if Wikipedia thinks that relational databases are noteble, and Darwen is notable within the field, he merits at least a flatworm's worth of article-space (rather than a null entry in Wikipedia). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites and Honorary degree suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as per Jezhotwells and Xxanthippe. Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the effort should however be to expand this article beyond being mainly a list of his works, to include some proper biographical information such as education, personal development, family history, place of birth, date of birth, etc. Kudpung (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, without a reliable source of such basic information, should we even have an article? WP:Notability (people) would seem to say 'No', but Wikipedia:Notability (academics) would seem to say 'Yes'. Which wins? Qwfp (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ðe more specific recommendation, ðat on academics, takes precedence. Even because, in academia, works are important, not family history, place and date of birþ or personal development. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At AfD#1, maybe you can get away with citing how important he is. However, at AfD#2, you need to start putting up. In particular, you need to make a showing that Hugh Darwen has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to justify having a stand-alone article on the topic. He may have authored books, but since his actions have not prompted others to write about him, that shows how non-worthy of note he really is. When I look at the article and read the above discussion, it is clear tht the Wikipedia article Hugh Darwen tangentially discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover article by his fans. The abundant keep positions are very WP:GNG weak and have failed to rebut the strong "lack of sufficient reliable source coverage" argument presented by the delete positions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has strong cases both for WP:PROF#C1 for his database work, and WP:GNG for his bridge puzzle work. There are reliable sources for both of these claims to notability (the Open Eye piece for his database work, and the New York Times for his bridge puzzles). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 29 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. Thanks for improving the article! Sandstein 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sullivan

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

Unsourced stub biography of a painter from 2007. No clear indication of notability per WP:BIO. Sandstein 12:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - She has been covered in the NY Times, and some local papers like the Valley Citizen. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How thorough is the NYT coverage? Link is dead for me. Sandstein 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - Odd. The link works for me but who knows what sort of filtering the NY Times may have on their site. The article is about Ms. Sullivan's work called "Glory Days", and discusses her finger smear technique. It's 5 paragraphs but she and "Glory Days" is the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. Withdraw, then, if the article is updated with these sources. Sandstein 06:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have updated the article with references. Note that I have used WebCite on the references so you should be able to review the NY Times reference through the archived copy. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceri Keegan

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. The subject had a few bit parts in a few soap operas, does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced biography of a living person, no sign of reliable sources from Google searches above. Article created by an editor who has made no edits since. --Qwfp (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. No mentions in IMDB which is at worst suspicious, and at best doesn't bode well for evidence of signficiant roles in multiple productions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find sourcing of any kind in a few searches.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm checking BLPs for WP:Wales and can find no evidence of this person as a notable actress or singer. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 23:00, 28 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 article. No consensus on article name change.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist)

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

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

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

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

Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-notable activist. Sources are all YouTube videos. Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. Afro (Talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - David Wood is certainly notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. He has debated some notable figures who have wikipedia articles themselves, such as Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi. He is the most likely candidate to have future debates with the likes of Yusuf Estes and zakir naik who all have wikipedia articles. If all muslims he has debated and will debate have wikipedia articles, why shouldn't he himself? A google search of 'David Wood Islam' here yields 271,000 results; 'David Wood christian' yields 2 million results. He has had debates in Lodon, in major European citis, in Chicago, in New York and even Saudi Arabia. I fear that all the current delete votes are out of ignorance on this subject. this non-partisan site describes Woods as 'world famous'. I have since added some more references to prove the notability of Wood. Also, several of Woods peers also have wikipedia articles, such as James White (theologian), so why shouldn't Woods? Even a video google search shows Wood to be the most popular video debater with a sarch of 'islam christianity debate'. Someone65 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, it isn't ignorance, it is just pure and simple non-notability. Also, the references you added do not meet the standard for WP:RS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, Fyi, i have since added reliable references. You guys started voting too quickly when i was not done referencing and was not done with the article. I think the votes should start all over again because you guys started voting when this was still a stub; meaning most of the objections are now nullified Someone65 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding junk like loonwatch.com and thereligionofconquest.com does not impress me in the slightest. My opinion to delete is still quite valid, thanks. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. None of these "references" are reliable third party references, some are blogs, which is never allowed, and the others are YouTube, also not allowed. The rest, not reliable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Neutral leaning towards it. With reference to Someone's points above. "He has debated some notable figures who have wikipedia articles themselves, such as Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi" I don't think this is a valid rationale personally, it's not even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, anyone can debate notable subjects without being notable. "He is the most likely candidate to have future debates with the likes of Yusuf Estes and zakir naik who all have wikipedia articles" again, and WP:CRYSTAL. "If all muslims he has debated and will debate have wikipedia articles, why shouldn't he himself?" as above. "A google search of 'David Wood Islam' here yields 271,000 results" is not that many, and several are in passing reference while discussing another more notable topic, also see WP:GOOGLETEST. "He has had debates in Lodon, in major European citis, in Chicago, in New York and even Saudi Arabia" all of these places contain a lot of many non-notable locations and non-notable people. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now neutral given expansion. Still don't find him ticking all the neutrality boxes, almost as if he is trying to inherit notability by writing articles on notable subjects. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

o:::*Comment: people can become genuinely notable for writing on notable subjects. DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zip for reliable sources for this person, all the ghits appear to land on minor advocacy sites and youtube videos. Perhaps the people noted as debate opponents need some scrutiny as well, or they may be notable for other things. "Since X exists, Y must exists too" is not a valid criteria to keep an article. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as far as apologists go and there does not seem to be the highest standard of notability for them e.g.Shabir Ally. I do not know the weight of Youtube, but his videos have almost 7 million views on his channel alone. He has also been covered in The Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, 'CBS News, Christianity Today, among others and he regularly appears on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network. --Ari (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but expand. Needs to be improved. Lede needs to be a summary of the rest of the article so all of the citation requests in the lede need to be moved to the body and fulfilled there. The guidelines of WP:BIO or WP:PROF must be clearly displayed as well. Without the latter, I would have to change my vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There is at least some coverage of him in independent sources. Leadwind (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the current article references do show sufficient notability per WP:RS. Atom (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - the article as written does not clearly establish the notability of the subject. There may be some appropriate sources in there that establish notability, but because so many of the sources are clearly not reliable (or even permissible as sources here) and the citations are not in proper format, it would be unduly time consuming to sift through them for the possible nugget. If there are significant mentions in reliable sources could someone point those out? It's pointless for a bevy of Wikipedia commentors here to start watching youtube videos from bare links. The article needs a lot of work on many counts (original research, non-neutral statements, unencyclopedic voice, etc.), and given the relatively obscure subject matter it seems likely that it will not be brought up to Wikipedia standards unless the original author takes the time to do so - another deletion criterion irrespective of notability. I would strongly urge the original author to voluntarily allow it to be userfied, while spending a little more time perfecting the art of writing a viable Wikipedia article. I'd take that all back if the sources are pointed out and the article edited to the point of viability, but why not spare all the process discussion and just do that in userspace? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind fixing the article up, but could you be a bit more specific? where? how? Someone65 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, he's one of the most popular youtube evangelists, he's young but at the forefront of religious debators, he's referenced in books, If you look at the external links section you see how many academic articles he's responsble for creating. Even his lesser known peers have wikipedia articles. He is administrator, owner or major contributor of several websites. He is frequently invited by several Christian channel hosts. H'es possible the number 1 debator at Islam vs Christian events. He's surely notable and suitable for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Someone65 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to citations, please see the family of "cite" templates, template:cite news, template:cite book, and so on. You aren't require to use them specifically but they will show you what a reference citation should look like. Regarding reliable sources to establish notability, you need to find third party secondary sources that mention him and/or his work in a significant way to establish that he is of note. Citing his own works and videos, articles in World Net Daily, opinions, editorials, supporters, commentators, etc., does not. Youtube videos are an interesting example. Hit counts, even millions and millions of views, don't establish notability. They are a fact that one would think would make someone notable, but unless you have a source pointing out how popular he is, simply inferring that yourself from the hit counts does not. If you look at the history and talk page of List of Internet phenomena you'll see this in action. As a counterexample, certain bestseller lists or top movie lists, or awards, establish notability themselves without requiring a secondary source to report on it. An example of unencyclopedic tone is the statement in the lede that he "now focuses on the problem of evil." Starting from the beginning, statements of time if any should be absolute or relative to the subject, and not relative to the writing of the article. Five years from now that statement will remain if nobody updates it, and so the word "now" may become stale. "Focuses" is a little too active. Exactly what does it mean to focus? Does that mean he has lectured more frequently on it? He is researching it? And then what is evil and in what sense is it a "problem"? That's not terribly well defined. Ideally a lede does not need citations, but rather summarizes cited facts from the main article. Nevertheless, rereading it, I don't think it's all that bad so I'll withdraw the part of my comment that it's not viable. If you can find, or point out, the neutral second party reliable sources, that would establish notability. I did some searching, but it's a little difficult because he shares his name with a number of historical figures and somebody in basketball. Also, don't worry about the votes so far. If you show notability, people will change their mind... and the !votes cast before the article was finished will be discounted. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page asking me to revisit, in a few days if you make some progress. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is something wroing with teh infobox, which makes him "President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary". This is contrary to what that article says and probably inconsistent with his stated residence in the Bronx. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. I accidently copied that when i copy-pasted from another infobox. Someone65 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only third-party RS which appear to mention the subject's name are from news reports on Christian sites about him being arrested along with three other people. This seems a rather minor event but, either way, if no notability can be shown other than in connection with this, then WP:BLP1E applies. --FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Still thinking about this deletion proposal. Will come back with comment on that later. But I've just placed a query on the Talk page asking about the section of the article titled Course. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources which demonstrate notability. There's the stuff about the Dearborn Arab Festival, but that would hardly make this fellow notable enough for an article. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was invited at my Talk page to comment at this discussion by User:Someone65.
Delete - Most of the sources for the article are personal websites which fail WP:RS. Though some of the Muslim people with whom Wood has debated have Wikipedia articles, the presence of some such articles does not automatically mean Wood warrants an article, per Other stuff exists. Further, some of those articles should also be considered for deletion, e.g. Shabir Ally is insufficiently sourced to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apart from the article's author, User:Someone65, no one has made any edits to the article, other than to indicate problems therein. This would tend to suggest a lack of notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this could be accounted for by the fact that the article has only been started a few days ago. DMSBel (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm still trying to make up my mind on this. I had never before heard of this guy. The more I look at it, the more it seems that Christians debating Muslims is seen as some sort of modern sport, with David Woods one of the popular players on the Christian team. Is he up there in MVP class, or is he just an attention seeking also-ran with some noisy fans? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely an MVP and professional debator. Im not even a Christian, but I'm familiar with him. If you do a google-video search of 'christian islam debate' you will notice most of the time its either him debating, his adversaries debating, or one of his collegues such as Nabeel Queshi or Sam Shamoun (who are co-owners on websites such as answering-islam.org and other websites). Here's a list of some examples of his debates. Someone65 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other people who are usually listed along with Wood (including Queshi) in his protesting efforts seem to have warranted their own articles either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because i think Wood is more prolific than his colleagues Shamoun and Qureshi. Alhough i did think of creating an article for Shamoun, i think Shamoun is not notable enough. Someone65 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of "he's a preacher" Crisis.E X E 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant 3rd party sources. Ther ones that are do not give much indication that he is a particularly important figure. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone65, while commendably passionate about his/her subject, appears to be arguing for inclusion from a "but people know him" position. I respectfully suggest that he/she read up on WP:N to learn more about notability as required for inclusion in Wikipedia as opposed to "I think he's notable". Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have since added quite a few secondary sources and i think two tertiary sources in the past few hours. However it is difficult to find refs because his name is so common in google. I might get a few more in a while though. Someone65 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated on your talkpage, only one of the references is a reliable third-party source. The personal sites, blogs and videos are not and (as I have stated) should be replaced. Before you add any references to the page, please read WP:RS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, fyi, it does start to get annoying when someone repeats around EIGHT times to you over different talk pages to read a wikipedia policy. How many more times are you going to follow me around on wiki to ask me to read WP:RS ? Have you got nothing new to say? Its getting boring. You've already said it FOUR times on this talk page and FOUR times on my talk page. Do you always edit like that or what? Someone65 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you actually listen to me and read the policy and replace all but one of the references on that page with sources that aren't in violation of policy, then yes, I will say something different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the closing admin. You're not even an administrator so im not per se going to listen to you. This article is still undergoing editing and review. Nevertheless, considering your Track Record i'm not sure whtehr i should follow your example. Someone65 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you found my block log (anyone find that suspicious?), you will also notice I have been here for 4 years. You have been here about 7 1/2 months. I have learned the rules and policies of Wikipedia, especially the ones about editing articles. So, whether you want to listen to me or not, that is your business, not mine, but if you do, you are likely to get your page saved from deletion. People who listen and are open to corrections, I am more willing to help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here 7 1/2 months? How do you know? How do you know i wasn't editing on an IP profile or another wiki? Think before you talk please. Someone65 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"2815 edits since: 2010-06-09" according to Popups. That date is when your account was created. It doesn't give me IPs you have edited from. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it guys. Neutralhomer, that date is 19 months ago. And I'm someone whose date for starting editing here will be deceptive. I have used more than one username , for personal reasons, and have edited from different countries, so not very traceable. (No, I'm not trying to hide.) We must be careful leaping to conclusions. However, I think Someon65 does need to recognise that the videos are not valid sources. They should have been got rid of as soon as the problem was pointed out. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I am trying to get across. RS has to be followed and videos, blogs and personal sites are not valid sources, but more and more keep getting added. Only one newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, was used in the article, which is an RS. If User:Someone65 would have read WP:RS, they would have seen that these weren't valid, but they haven't and don't seem like they will with what they have said above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, can i put the videos in an external link or something? Someone65 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would let people go to YouTube themselves. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a valid question, because videos are precisely what this guy does. I imagine they could be put in a See also section, or even one more specifically titled to indicate that they are examples of what he does. Interested in others' ideas here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but wouldn't that violate WP:LINKFARM? Could Someone65 just link to Wood's YouTube channel under "External Links" and not each individual video? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woods youtube channel does not contain these videos. some are from google videos. Someone65 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I believe it is too much like a linkfarm and shouldn't be done. If people want to find the videos, they can go to Google and search and they will find them easily. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put them under external links already Someone65 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of WP:LINKFARM is "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links...", which is works very well in this situation. The main YouTube account association with David Wood is allowed under WP:EL, all other videos are fall under WP:LINKFARM. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should provide sources that establish existing notability. The article shouldn't try to promote individual videos in which Wood has appeared. A single link to the account page would seem appropriate. However, the underlying issue of notability has not been resolved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone65 has removed the YouTube and Google Video links, but left the official YouTube account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a mention in the March 15, 2008 Daily Press (Virginia). Here's a blurb in a reprint of the September 5, 2009 Detroit Free Press. Here's a reprint of the June 20, 2010 Detroit Free Press discussing his arrest. Here's an article from the July 31, 2010 The Arab American News. Here a reprint of an article from the September 25, 2010 Associated Press. David Wood's name is so common that it is difficult to find relaible source material on him. Since he seems able to generate some news coverage about himself, there probably is more out there. If someone can get him to list the paper-print media press coverage of him on his website, that would make things much easier. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those are added, it would bring up the RS count considerably. Please add them (if you haven't already). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks pretty good now. Someone65 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you WP:NOTNEWS, here's what I mean by this. Carl Myles in 2006 stole a goat it was covered by BBC News [17], The Sun (United Kingdom) [18] and USA Today [19] we do not have an article for the Welshman now do we. Afro (Talk) 03:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Etc. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This page is filled with sources that do not even come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia's WP:RS (and yes, Someone65, I am aware that you have seen that about a billion times, but that's because it's valid). The reason I say keep for now is that if Someone65 can find some reliable, third party sources, this gentleman (who I have heard of, even seen one of his debates) would warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, IMO. Vyselink (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been improved significantly since it was added to this deletion discussion, and the subject now appears to meet the GNG. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone65 asked me to reconsider. He has greatly improved the article, and it would be a satisfactory article, showing just the way we should cover a figure like this according to NPOV --if the person is notable. He just barely meets the technical requirements of the GNG, but the GNG provides no real help when the question is how substantial the coverage must be. NOT NEWS also is pretty clear at the two extremes, but very fuzzy in the middle. In the end it comes down to an individual global judgement on whether what the person has cone is reasonably notable -- which in our context can only mean something that might appropriately be looked for in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Looked at this way, I conclude what he has done is not significant if his actions are looked at our of context. They are, however, in the context of the general effort by American Christians to evangelize among Muslim groups. What convinced me of this is the Arab Detroit News article linked just above, which showes it in just that context. In doubtful cases it helps to read the sources themselves, not just listen to our own arguments DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone65 also asked me to reconsider. Though the article has been improved, most of the references are still from personal websites, and Wood's primary notability still seems to be for his arrest among three others who are apparently not notable enough to warrant articles. My position therefore remains Delete.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for nowDelete unless reliable sources found~~ Strong Delete - Article has been improved... but must remain neutral and not turn into attack or self promotional page and needs MUCH better sources. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was invited at my Talk page to comment at this discussion by User:Someone65 as well... seems he was rather prolific. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also asked by Someone65 to review my position following his improvements. Whilst the current referencing is much improved, I do not think the subject of this article crosses the notability threshold. As has been noted above, WP:GNG is not necessarily helpful in cases such as this and a closer reading of the sources is required. He is a minor religious figure who's only real claim to fame is a fuss created at an ethnic fair. On this basis, I maintain my !vote of Delete, noting WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually going through the sources...The Pittsburg Tribune Review describes him as: "On one YouTube video that has been viewed by 2.2 million people, David Wood, a student at Fordham University" So the only reliable source here describes him as a student... that's it. I do not see him described as anything else. Not describing him as some kind of religious... anything. Changed to Strong Delete above. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, He would be a post-graduate student surely if he is already has two degrees? Professional Speaker / Debater seems beyond doubt though. DMSBel (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need improving, but it seems notable to me. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and watch closely since this article covers a controversial figure and may be prone to BLP problems. There's enough mainstream coverage to more than meet our notability requirements; see this Google News archive search. At the same time, there's not so much (as of now) that this is a must-keep if the subject requests deletion. (Personally, if I was Mr. Wood, I'd be worried this article could be something of a liability going forward if not watched closely). This article was started by an established editor; as a courtesy, in the future, I recommend discussing article problems with the article's creator (or at least on the article talk page) before bringing an article to AfD (just an hour after creation). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly seems notable and article has been improved and is well cited. Have just watched a college debate in which he took part, lecture hall was filled to capacity - in light of that I think he is definitely notable. DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unfortunate votes (permanent link). -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rename and improve - The process of this deletion request was suspect at best. This was nominated for deletion while the author was actively working on it. A google news search about him (not just using his name, but some other info as well) makes it seem like he could be notable. I would think that the article should be renamed as an "apologist" is a loaded term, however it is intended here.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see a problem with the term "apologist", it is purely descriptive in its usage here, however, having looked up three other notable apologists CS Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, and Josh McDowell, it seems the norm not to include it in the title. Was it needed here for the purpose of disambiguation maybe?DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name "David Wood" brings up 8 David Woods (including this one)in a wikipedia search, all of whom have a secondary title applied, i.e., there is a David Wood (actor and writer), a David Wood (basketball), David Wood (philosopher) etc. The term "apolgist" is used correctly under this DW, and so to disambiguate between the multiple DW's, it should be kept. Vyselink (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues isn't whether the term "apologist" is correctly applied here. The issue is whether that is the best description seeing as it automatically carries with it highly negative connotations. Also, Christian apologist is just a silly sounding job title (or referential name). Surely there is a broader category into which we could fit him? Religious scholar? Historian? Academic? Theologian? Public Speaker? Activist? Christian Advocate?LedRush (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how "apologist" is "highly negative". It is an academic/theological term that actually PROMOTES whatever religion/thought it is referring to, in this case Christianity. Some of the most famous/popular Christian saints, such as Saint Jerome and Thomas Aquinas, were apologists, and I do not think that Christians would say that they have a "silly sounding job title" I would argue that David Wood is NOT a religious scholar, as he hasn't attempted to give/find new insights. Nor is he a historian, theologian, and he is apparently barely an academic, which I would definitely argue that he is not that either. Public Speaker is WAAAAAY too broad, and activist isn't specific enough. Christian Advocate........I can kind of see that one, but seeing as how what he does is really apologetic in nature, I still believe that Christian Apologist is not only technically correct, but also realistically describes what he is. "Apologist" is not a dirty/negative word/term, and I am truly baffled as to why so many people seem to think it is. Vyselink (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are many articles on Wikipedia about 'apologists' (in this context), it looks as though there are only two articles that include "(Christian apologist)" (including this one), only two with "(apologist)", as well as one "(Catholic apologist)" (excluding redirects in all cases). It would therefore seem that it should be tagged as something else both for this article (if kept), as well as the others. It seems unusual that a person notable as an 'apologist' would not inherently be notable as something else, e.g. theologian/author/etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind the use of theologian as this is used in many other titles in the Christian apologists category list Someone65 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my more general statement, "a person notable as an 'apologist'", should not be construed as meaning that I have changed my position regarding Wood's notability in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with labeling him a "theologian". A theologian is someone who "does" (for lack of a better immediate term) theology. Theology "is the rational and systematic study of religion" (per wikipedia) or "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience" per Merriam-Webster. He does not study religion, he defends the Christian viewpoint. What Wood does is not theology, it is apologetic (per wikipedia): "Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason. Early Christian writers (c. 120-220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and leaders known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies or are minority views. That last bit is David Wood to a T. Although not highly well known, if he is to be included in Wikipedia, he should be labeled by what he does, which would make him a Christian apologist/apologetic, especially given the fact that there are 7 more "David Woods". The only other "title" that makes sense would be Christian Advocate, although it is not as correct as apologist. Jeffro77's arguement that only 2 others are labeled "apologist" is not a valid reason for NOT labeling Wood what he is. I'm guessing that the majority of apologists are not named as such either because they are A) better known as something else (i.e. no point in saying Thomas Aquinas (Christian Apologist) or Saint Jerome (Christian apologetic) as they are saints), or B) there are not many other people with the same name. Vyselink (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Vyselink - Apologist is not a derogatory term, it might be better here than Theologian. He is however also a member of two philosophical societies and has a degree in Philosophy.DMSBel (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing with me DMSBel. The only point I would like to make is that I have a degree in History, and am a member of several historical societies (including the American Historical Associaton) but I am not a historian. His degree in Philosophy (which come to think of it I actually haven't seen anywhere that he has one. I'll have to look) does not make him a philosopher, let alone a theologian. Vyselink (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that Christian Apologist is most fitting here. Every apologist engages either in writing or speaking and debating. So those activities are not primary but part of how he performs his work of Apologetics. And yes membership of philosophical societies does not in itself make one a philosopher. I am completely in agreeance with you that Theologian would be incorrect here. He is definitely listed as a Teaching Fellow in Philosophy on Fordham University website here [[20]]. So I am not completely opposed to that title but see no problem with Chrisian Apologist. DMSBel (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when I suggested tagging with 'theologian', I was referring to articles tagged with 'apologist' in a generic sense, and not recommending the term be used specifically for Wood. However, if he is notable, there should be some better way of tagging him. But still not convinced sufficient notability has been established for Wood.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how I have told you in several past AfDs, you should know by now that simply saying "keep it is notable" is not a valid AfD opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after watching the article improve over some time. I have decided that my "vote" is a valid opinion in this particular Afd as it is per fact Notable. Case closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still have ~3 days to change your mind and actually add substance you your !vote and avoid havuing it discounted (as it no doubt will) at closing time. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DGG. Subject meets WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reliable sources since added to the article seem to indicate the individual meets our notability guidelines. I think it's important we guard against the article becoming a coat rack, however, which seems like a particularly distinct possibility. jæs (talk) 23:04, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Luís Hélio Pereira

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

The player di not made his professional debut yet and the creator provided a fake stats. Matthew_hk t c 09:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. User:jacob1318 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never made a senior appearance, let alone a professional one, he clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:03, 28 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) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grubb (artist)

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

No real sign of notability, and more than a faint whiff of self-promotion. At first sight it seems an impressive list of references, but they're all either primary or so close to it as to make no difference. The list of "famous relatives" is strange - andd there's no indication that any of them are relatives (and even if they were, notability is not inherited). As an artist, Grubb seems to fail my "self-notability test" (i.e., he seems to be less notable than I am, and I proposed that the article on me be deleted!) Grutness...wha? 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Ghits other than self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independently-established notability in the article or found. References in the article don't help, including at least one WP mirror. The Yahoo Answers stuff is particularly unconvincing. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I happen to know Michael, I really am related! While he is certainly talented, he is not quite famous just yet. And many of the list of relatives are not related, just named Grubb. Be gentle, he is a fine young man who is just over-enthusiastic about his place in the world.LynnSGrubb (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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. Spam or, at best, non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoduna DataStore

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

Non-notable software with only three Google hits. Corvus cornix_talk 07:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and per G11. In addition, the article was created by the inventor of the software: [21] [22]. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 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. From the main article "The use of the phrase is no longer limited to athletics, and now represents an educational philosophy inherent to the nation's oldest schools.[4] In addition, Ivy League schools are often viewed by the public as some of the most prestigious universities worldwide and are often ranked amongst the best universities in the United States and worldwide.[5]" WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, it is not analogous to other such groupings based solely on athletic competition. As that argument is demonstrably flawed the argument to keep outweighs the argument to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note It's somewhat moot now as it has been kept again, but it should probably have been mentioned that this is actually the third nomination of this article:

Beeblebrox (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ivy League business schools

Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term "Ivy League" is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. At most, it could be a category, but a category, a template, and an article are unnecessary. Jadunne (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree. Just because these are the "top 10" schools for sports in no way means that any other part of the school is necessarily of the same caliber. I feel that such a template is quite misleading. Banaticus (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There are just six of them, not ten. Moreover, they're definitely not top sports schools, and they haven't been since the early twentieth century. Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's assertions have no basis in reality. Contrary to the nominator's assertions, the Ivy League is far more than a sports league; its name is used to refer to these schools in a wide range of scholastic settings. Nyttend (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I am aware that is how the term is colloquially used. But the conflation of business schools and sports league has no significance. Are you saying you would support creating a Pac-10 medical schools category and template? How about an NCAA Division 1 law schools category? Jadunne (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe Nyttend supports just that, Jadunne. See Template:Big Ten Law Schools. Banaticus (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This classification makes no less sense than, say, "Law schools of the mid-Atlantic states". What difference does it make to the law school whether it's in one US Census Bureau-designated region of the United States or another? Does it affect the academic quality of the institution? Does it affect the philosophy of the institution? Well, no, but it's a convenient way to lump a set of schools together. Athletic conferences serve a similar function, and are similarly geography-based. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. This is a reasonable analogy for what the question comes down to. Classification by geography is the standard, so you can do city, state, or country, or in this case, a grouping of states. But picking a non-geographical grouping is not useful unless it has some significance to the articles in the group. You would not want an article on Nursing Schools in Red States, unless being a nursing school in a red state had some significance, right? Jadunne (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale that a "sports league" is a poor way of categorizing law schools is a very uninformed one. Colleges and universities are typically in sports leagues with institutions that share many similarities with them, making them natural groupings for many other purposes. However, whether this should should be a list or a category is a different issue altogether and I have no strong opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Ivy League" is not just occasionally colloquially used to refer to the schools as a whole, that's the current common usage of the term. If we start going through the Oxford English Dictionary for original meanings, "worm" articles could only refer to dragons (the original meaning) and so on. A little different since this is a formal noun, but not much.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether it makes sense to refer to an "Ivy League" school when it comes to a prestigious degree or educational attainment, the fact is that prospective students, employers and business people find significance in an "Ivy League business school", and it's a reference to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, etc. [23]. I think the nominator is correct about there not being the same feeling about a "Big Ten business school", but the Ivy League as just an athletic conference? Mandsford 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion at the virtually identical case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Ten business schools is proceeding very differently from this one and attracting different participants. (I'm the only person to weigh in on both cases so far, not counting the nominator.) If it's okay to use "Ivy League", it should be okay to use "Big Ten"; if it's not okay to use "Big Ten", it shouldn't be okay to use "Ivy League". —Bill Price (nyb) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer; I provided feedback there as well. I respectfully disagree that these articles are equivalent though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether you think it's "okay", but rather whether the term is used by other people. Let's leave the Big Ten out of this. There's no comparison between [24] and [25]. Not surprising. I got a "Big Ten education", and it's not even a term that one would use, let alone hold in the same esteem as an "Ivy League education". Mandsford 03:22, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Epic of Pathological Dystopia

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

Non-notable poem, article written by one of the authors of the poem, seven Google hits for this title, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 06:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion it was ever published, no references, no Google hits. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, or even unreliable ones for that matter. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsames (band)

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

Non-notable band, it's hard to find sources to assert notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low G hits with low quality as the nom refered, refrences cant pas WP:RS, the article fails to meet WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: Metal Hammer is one of the biggest metal mag. they wrote an article about arsames, Arsames play in Unirock Open Air Festival with Arch Enemy, Amon Amarth and... they 've got the most vote for Metalcamp 2009 that the bands like Nightwish, Blind Guardian played on that fest. They Releaed one signed albume in worlwide. I think there is no reason to delete this article about one of greatest persian metal band. --Peace (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just search UK and Germany Metal Hammer webzine , there is no result! also no coverage in many other reliable sources,also their myspace page says they are unsigned! I think the article is a hoax too Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing, why there is no live review about this band anywhere if they are notable because of playing live concerts!? and plz provide reliable sources for you comments. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replay: That was not an online article but printed, Look at this photos, all article of metalhammer is not online! Check Myspace again dude, I think you can see that it fixed now!

And Please take look at this and video and take look at these articles: Unirock Open Air Festival and Metalcamp.--Peace (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: photos and videos are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, and according to WP:Music the record label should be a well known indi at least and the band should have 2 albums , from the other hand playing some concerts doesnt make a band notabel enough for wikipedia, thousands of bands play concerts, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social network, strongly suggest you to read WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: No reliable third-party sources can be found.Farhikht (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replay: That Phots are not my source but that article, you told me that article is Hoax then I show you those! Something you should undrestand It's about a persian metal band not an american or eurpean, The metal is forbidden in iran. Look at these articles: Sabhankra, Mezarkabul, Hollenthon ... I'm persian wikipedian and I know what the rules said, you should better to tag this as more sources needed! --Peace (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I concur with Mfaiiazi reasoning. These guys are notable in Iran. According to Prohibition of rock and metal geners in our country, They are forced to release their music as underground and covert. Metal hammer coverage is substantial enough to constitute significant coverage in a reliable source. Cobain (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as I said thier name does not appear in the band section of Metlahammer, Hammer also writes demo reviews does that make a band notable too? if so we would have thousands of new articles, if a band is notable in Metal Hammer you can easily find many other reliable sources about them too specially when the author used that source to call them Iron Maiden or Death of Iran! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing, did they actually play at Metalcamp? I dont think so, and also Mfaiiazi created another article about a non notable band that hase been deleted with speedy deletion. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replay: That was a separated article about arsames! You should attend to this!

That Article you talked about was my first time writing on wikipedia, I didn't know the rules but I think we are not here to judge me! You are on wrong way I think dude! --Peace (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Concur with Cobain and Mfaiiazi. Arsame is Notable in Iran and I found this on Amazon, So they are signed band. --Arash (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Amazon is a online store not a source!!! obviously fails WP:RS, the serious problem about the metal hammer source, the article says: "They 've got many positive reaction from fans and critics as they addressed arsames as iron maiden and death of iran" so why we can't find any of this critics?! why the G hits have low guality and why there is nothing about this band on allmusic ?! not even their name Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replay: You 're amazing dude, Buy that mag. and see that article with your own eyes!--Peace (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The only coverage in a reliable source that would possibly be of use here to establish notability is the Metal Hammer article, but it's clear from the pictures on Facebook that this is very brief. It's only one source, and not sufficient basis for an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC) The Timeout Dubai article below and this article from The Telegraph (Kolkata), make this at least a Weak keep for me. The coverage isn't substantial enough to make it clear cut, but three different reliable sources from three countries outside their own should make the band worthy of at least a short article.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They are Notable in Persian speaking world. Kaaveh (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dont think so Kaaveh, here is the Persian G hits: search result, very low G hits, low quality also in Farsi, some of the results refrer to a commander named Arsames from Old Persia. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you search it in Persian, you will find alot about this band. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to political and religious issues in Iran, It is very difficult (I should say impossible) to perform such things inside Iran. As you can see, most of their performances are outside Iran. Therefore not only I believe it should not be deleted from wikipedia, but also I would like to ask all editors to introduce more of these hidden groups (bands) from Iran. There are many of them. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your search result has only 345 hits! obviously not enough to assert notability. there are many good artciles about Iranian musicians in wikipedia with reliable sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, actually searching it again with the correct dictation in Persian, turned out to be 2460 hits. I believe it's enough to be notable. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Search engine test. Number of Google hits does not give a reliable guide to notability.--Michig (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Justin, Which part of the article makes you say that it is a soapbox ?! Even if you find such a thing, Why not deleting that specific part, instead of deleting the whole article ? It's not really fair. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 19:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mfaiiazi and per AWP:Energy conservation.°°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? Wait - Energy Conservation?? - ManicSpider (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: more refrences: An interview with Arsames on extreminal.com, Arsames in indian tv and Press conference, ARSAMES Death Metal band from Iran :: JorZine Bands, Timeout Dubai Mag.. I will add them to the article tomorrow, Now I'm so tired. Have good day. --Peace (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TimeOut one adds something towards establishing notability, but yet more webzines and a youtube video don't really help.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:per Peace. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mfaiiazi (Peace) plz read WP:RS non of your links can pass it. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've added the Kolkata Telegraph and Time Out Dubai sources and tidied the article a little. May be worth another look for those who judged the article as it was at the start of the AFD.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add "Band braves ban for a blare - Iran metal musicians to rock Gangtok on sunday" in Voice of Sikkim, 19 November 2010. to the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I'm loathe to become involved in a debate that has already gone on so long (but with how many actual participants one wonders? ^_^) there seems to be sufficient coverage in the article to establish notability. I'd also say this - on my reading of WP:RS there is no reason why a video cannot be a reliable source, especially if it is a video from a national news service. It doesn't say notability can only ever be proven by print media - therefore I think the Indian news clips from YouTube could count as reliable sources. There is perhaps a little too much WP:Fancruft in amongst the encyclopedic content, but that can always be removed. - ManicSpider (talk) 10:34, 29 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) 18:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Return (the band)

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

A very minor English band without any evidence of notability. This was tagged for A7 speedy (correctly, in my mind), but there's been a bit of debate at the talk page, and since multiple editors don't like the idea of speedying this, I really don't think it good to delete without formal discussion. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the administrator who speedy deleted the article twice under A7. The third creation expanded the text and added the Birmingham Mail link. However, that's the only reliable source, and it doesn't cover much, so little in the article is verified. And verifiability is a big issue: the article even contradicts itself about when the band formed. For me, it comes down to this: the band did get a slot on (inter)national radio, but it was only two songs—not a half-hour show, not placement in heavy rotation. They have yet to release an album. As a result, they have not yet proven themselves to be a notable band. —C.Fred (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the birminghammail.com reference, the references that were added earlier were not reliable or not significant coverage. I don't feel this satisfies wp:GNG, which uses words like "multiple sources". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all above stated reasons, and also some of the deleted references worked to show the band did not meet notable band. Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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 Merge to Pakistani cuisine#Eating Habits. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani snacks

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

Overly narrow intersection. What makes these exclusively Pakistani? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list has no criteria; just because a snack might be eaten in Pakistan doesn't mean it is Pakistani. Lots of people eat spaghetti here in America; does that make spaghetti American? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another indiscriminate list. No indication that people have written about this list, and I agree with Erpert on the broader point: not ever minutiae of every culture needs an article, particularly one that doesn't add much. Shadowjams (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There are numerous related topics such as mithai and chaat. As this is just a stub, a sensible way of observing our editing policy would be merger with Pakistani cuisine. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a new subsection "Snacks" of Pakistani cuisine#Eating Habits. --Lambiam 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak smerge/redirect per Lambiam. The problem is, as the nominator suggests, that these aren't exclusively Pakistani; indeed, the list could just as well be titled List of Indian snacks (which exists, but is also in pretty bad shape). The prose itself really says nothing of any depth. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:13, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Murphy (anaesthetist)

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

Just doesn't seem to be a notable person. Corvus cornix_talk 03:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the news in both 2001 (after Houllier's operation) and due to the GMC hearing in 2007. By Googling his name, it is FAR easier to find sources that descibe the GMC trial in progress - very few report its outcome. It would be good to have a definitive, impartial account of what happened. Tommurphy86 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - publication record insufficient to make it a case of WP:ACADEMIC, presence in news cycle appear to be no more than WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any lasting effect to speak of.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other publications - I haven't been able to find them yet. There are around 4 or 5 in total, if that becomes a major factor in the decision-making. Bit mean to call for his deletion the day before the second anniversary of his death! 86.142.94.167 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — 86.142.94/167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- As for lasting effect of the news stories - his case will be used as a precedent in the future, in issues of patient safety, training and consent.86.142.94.167 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the basis for notability is involvement in two events with limited press coverage. In one, WP:Bare notability applies (being thanked by name is not sufficient to establish notability). In the other, facing the GMC, there was limited press coverage, and even if it was enough coverage to meet notability (and I don't believe it was), WP:ONEEVENT would apply. The fact that there was little press interest in the outcome, further supports the non-notability. The paucity of coverage does not justify the use of Wikipedia as a platform for the purpose of righting perceived wrongs.Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTNEWS. If his case is used as a precedent in the future, it can be mentioned in the relevant article on patient safety or medical malpractice, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's sad that he died so young, but "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Qwfp (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything aboout merorialising anyone. If I had wanted to, I'd have ignored the GMC thing altogether, and focused on the Houllier story. Speaking of which, surely you all realise that the number of references I've provided isn't necessarily the total number of possible references out there? You seem to have honed straight in on the minute details without looking at the context.

Novangelis - you "don't believe" there was sufficient news coverage? This is a bit like the black raven logical fallacy. You haven't seen any, therefore it didn't exist? It was on national television news in a small country called the UK. But you don't believe it, so I guess it didn't happen. I don't understand why you're so determined to delete this page - I can't imagine what harm its presence does, or what good its deletion would do. But the sheer enthusiasm with which you've marched in with your emboldened 'Delete' demands suggest that this artcile has seriously offended you by daring to exist.

You've all (Corvus cornix, Novangelis and Qwfp) made your decision anyway, so I wouldn't want you to spend the next 7 dealing dealing with 'un-notable' people. I wonder how many people in your lives consider you to be notable? And thus, Wikipedia has suddenly become one page less comprehensive. Tommurphy86 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Tommurphy86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Being involved in an operation on someone notable doesn't make a doctor notable himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sourcing can be found to show that the doctor's involvement in the operation was notable outside of the fact of who the patient was, or that there is notability from other events, this appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and ultimately a case of a doctor doing his job. Simply being mentioned in the news in association with the procedure would not yield notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable either via WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Google News provides nothing additional to the two events already mentioned in the article; namely, initial coverage of his General Medical Council hearing, and mention in connection with football manager's surgery. Reads like an obituary. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that the author of the piece is Tommurphy86. Mr. Murphy, I'm very sorry for your loss, and I'm sure your loved one (father?) was a fine person. Unfortunately that is not enough to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If it was we would all have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 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 Speedy delete, this was deleted throug the AfD process and twice recreated in the last few hours, it should go through the WP:DRV process rather than be recreated repeatedly. It is now salted. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Quant

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. Local magician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are all local in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He isn't a local magician and is very well known worldwide. Articles are published and referenced better than other magicians in this encyclopedia. Please do your full research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abriotelon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As noted above the article individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Please provide support for WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE using reliable sources.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore University of Technology and Design

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The university has already been established (see http://www.su.edu.sg) and expects to matriculate its first cohort of students in April 2012. It is pointless to delete the article (clearly under construction at the moment) now, only for it to be recreated a few months later. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources from local mainstream media confirms establishment of the university, [26], [27], [28], [29]. Tie-up announced with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University. Final campus site already decided.Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: On their website, they list UNStudio Amsterdam as a co-designer for the campus. UNStudio confirms this. If they can commission campus design, they've been legally incorporated. Nothing crystal ballish about it. -- BenTels (talk) 16:32, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban communities of San Diego County

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

Redundant. No evidence that these are called "urban communities", whatever the heck those are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban communities are cities with high density.--cooljuno411 18:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Urban communities are cities with high density."{{Citation needed}} LadyofShalott 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article as it stands is completely unreferenced. I would assume it could easily be done, however. LadyofShalott 23:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The scope of this list appears to be subjective and it is not needed. Dough 48 72 03:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with San Diego County or Neighborhoods of San Diego, California Purple backpack89 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "redirect/merge" to San Diego County (where there is a link to this article), but on second look there is nothing worth merging, nothing verifiable and sourced in this article, and I could find no references to support any of it. It all appears to be subjective and/or original research, with no criteria given for what is or isn't an "urban community". I would suggest delete it and also delete the section on "urban communities" in the San Diego County article. BTW the similar article, Urban Communities of San Diego, was recently redirected to San Diego without discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I could find no other American city or county which has a similar article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no official definition of what constitutes an "urban community", making this whole article original research. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:07, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Pinter

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

WP:BLP1E. Minimal sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hmm.. perhaps a very very sshort article but the sourcing points towards that the events actually happened and are notable. I let more people get into the discussion to create a consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am going to hold off on making a recommendation for a moment, however, I wanted to add the following to the discussion: 1) After examining the first citation, I have strong BLP concerns regarding the subject's alleged involvement in organizing a book ban. 2) GNews does show two separate brief news events involving the subject - a bribery trial/guilty plea in the late 1970s (see Daniel Flood#Censure and resignation and GBooks) and the mortgage scam thirty years later. I am leaning towards redirect to Daniel Flood, however, I am willing to wait to see what others dig up. Location (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a case of minimum achieved notability. But is still notability, that was why I said Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. As far as the zootorah.com link - "He did not disclose their identities, but I later learned that they included" and "I was also tipped off that a close friend of" seems to be almost libelous and is hearsay. As far as the Lukford.net/blog blog, he seems to bash people on his blog, then advertises his own services on how to "Reclaim Your Reputation Online" by "And you can hire me to help you." http://lukeford.net/blog/?page_id=4872 As far as Reuters is did not say (for the second time). He is one of untold number or people arrested and sent to prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyd2011 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability as per nominator.

--俄国 (talk) 14:46, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroquay Crescent

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

Delete Non-notable road, fails WP:GNG. One of many tiny streets serving the shipping and receiving warehouses around Toronto Pearson Airport, that was removed by the expansion of the airport. No suitable redirect target. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable former road Admrboltz (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the street outside my apartment deserves an article more than this road, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Imzadi 1979 → 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability and zero WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:25, 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. seriously, if you vote keep it really helps to say something about policy or sourcing. The only arguments based on the relevant policy - N - were for deletion and no effort has been made to counter them so the delete arguments win by default as the only valid policy based arguments put forward. Source it or lose it seems pretty clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Apparently headcount is more important then stength of argument these days. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfer hair

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

Original research, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with reliable sources LOL this was eh, one of my less serious articles... I think I reading an article on a skullet so I thought why not have this article. You know I'd say "surfer hair" is actually well covered in fashion and popular culture. And there are numerous reliable sources like this and this covering it...In fact google books has picked up over 14,000 hits here. This easily passes requirements, especially now I've added 25 odd solid sources from books... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outstanding work by User:Dr. Blofeld. Bravo! Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good job Dr Blofeld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.170.27 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a common term in need of encyclopedic content, which it now has.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable sources which cover the subject in a significant way have not been produced. The sources provided above by Dr. Blofeld have almost nothing at all to do with surfer hair. The first one is about skin diseases and mentions the effect of exposure to sun, but never relates it to surfers specifically. The second source is just a google snippet, and the only mention is "However, the Surfer boy's hair style was due far more to status than sexual factors." This is not significant coverage. I went through all of the sources in the article, and the vast majority do not cover the topic. Most of them mention surfers, some of them even mention hair, but none of them discuss the topic of "surfer hair". Many of them are about a particular surfer, and make mention of that surfer's hair. There was one exception, here, however it is a how-to article and arguably not a reliable source. Up to this point, I have not seen any sources which pass WP:GNG. It almost seems as if the article was deliberately created with as many references as possible in an attempt to mask the non-notability of the subject. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through those summaries. Sounds like this is something notable. The first result, Meriden Journal - Apr 9, 1963, talks about this fad saying "The symbol of the surfer - bleached hair swept over the forehead- has been adopted by both boys and girls." With another paragraph about it that follows. Popular hairstyle for awhile there, and still remains today. The style isn't just for blond people [30], but the hairstyle itself. Isn't there a book about hairstyles, or something for hairdresser to know? Dream Focus 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say add an entry at Illustrated list of hairstyles with a short description and leave it at that. There isn't enough coverage of the style to create an entire article. SnottyWong ^babble 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the criterion you are using? It can't be the GNG, & I can't think of any applicable specialized criterion or section of NOT. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 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. Numerically there is only a small majority for keep, but improvement and re-focussing of the article during the debate have made some of the initial objections less compelling. I suggest a change of name to "List of Hong Kong Category III films". JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category III films

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

There are lots of notable Category III films in the world and including all will result in a very long list. Also, different countries may have different definitions of Category III. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can make out, Category III films is used only in Hong Kong and has no other significance. Severe danger of opening floodgates to lists of every category in every jurisdiction.... Emeraude (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bullet before your comment. Hope you don't mind. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some explanation is in order here, since it's not clear from the article. "Category III" redirects to Hong Kong motion picture rating system, and refers to a film to which nobody under the age of 18 is admitted. We have a List of NC-17 rated films that is primarily limited to those films (there are not that many) deemed notable enough for a Wikipeida article, and includes sourcing and information about why the film got that rating. This sources to imdb.com, which some people don't consider reliable. We have relatively few contributions about culture in the rest of the world, although entertainment-heavy Wikipedia has no small amount of film and TV information from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. While I appreciate the concern about setting a precedent for "lists of every category in every jurisdiction" (i.e., list of American westerns with a man with an eyepatch), I think we do need to have limited lists of films produced in other jurisdictions. Mandsford 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A deletion based upon worries over something that might or might not happen in the future is a reason to address those issues if or when they occur. But as Emeraude has pointed out that this list aplies only to whatever notable films might be rated this way in Hong Kong, and that such a list does not apply to all such similar films elsewhere "in the world", I find myself in agreement with User:Mandsford and established precedent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we could have articles called List of Category U films, List of Category PG films, List of Category 12A films, List of Category 18 films and List of Category R18 films, just covering UK films. And to be truly all-encompassing, we could also have List of Category U films, List of Category AA films, List of Category 15 films, List of Category H films to cover obsolete UK ratings. And, of course, different categories when films are released on video in the UK. And then repeat all of this for the USA. And Ireland. And Canada. And Australia. And France. And Spain. And...... Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....and it's not likely that we would. First, lists of films for general audiences-- children, those that carry a parental advisory, and those where a minor cannot attend without accompaniment-- are so large that they haven't permitted because of the impracticality. Hence, we have no list of American PG-rated films or G-rated films and it's not even a very good category. Second, relatively few notable (those that have an article here) films get the most restrictive "adults only" rating. Mandsford 13:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a a red- and non- link farm. Only source is IMDB which does cannot establish notability (WP:NFILM). In essence, this is a violation of WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:08, 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) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - with the condition that it's de-redlinked and better sourced - and given some explanation of the significance of the ratings that were notable. Skier Dude (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just did some work on the article and I realize that this article can become a good one. The introduction of the Hong Kong motion picture rating system in 1988 was followed by an abundance of exploitation films, which played a non negligible role in the history of Hong Kong cinema. Good lists and articles about this genre are hard to find on the internet, and this is a chance to have such a reference here. Of course the article needs a lot of work and I would suggest to only keep the films made in Hong Kong (ie remove the Japanese and Korean films), and turn the article into something like "List of Hong Kong Category III films". olivier (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete whoever came up with this list also forgot to account for the numerous Western "Cat III" films and not all of these are erotic films. Also this list is like a separate list for British 18 certificate and American NC-17 films, which there is far too many to list. Donnie Park (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edits have now been made. Donnie Park (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made very substantial changes to the original article. The article as it is today is very different from the version which was nominated for deletion. I have restricted the focus of the article to films produced in Hong Kong. I have also sorted the films by period. A lot can be added about the different periods and the major role played by Category III films in Hong Kong in the 1990s. It is now about a slice of history of the Hong Kong film industry, not about a quite useless list of thousands of films deemed not suitable for minors in a specific juridiction. olivier (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this amounts basically to adding a short intro and does not address the objections raised above that the article is nothing but a list of no value. Emeraude (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the original version and the current one, you will notice the difference. More than what you are implying. Yes there is an intro now and there was none before. Can the article be improved? Certainly. Is the need for improvement in itself a reason for deleting it? Surely not. The question of the value or lack thereof of such a list is debatable. I do not see much argument supporting the fact that the current list has "no value" beside the statement itself. olivier (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the initial list contained many films from Japan. They appear more clearly in this version. The current version of the list has only the Hong Kong films. olivier (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorify. Seems like an obvious middle road solution for it to be a category instead of a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 30 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} 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Parker-Rhodes

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

Concerns over neutrality, notability. The phrasing of some parts of the article, such as "He married author and political activist Damaris Parker-Rhodes and the couple earned a reputation as "bohemians" and eccentrics.[3] They were both members of the Communist Party (Klaus Fuchs stayed with them in Cambridge),[3] but became disillusioned with communism and in 1948 joined the Society of Friends." and "Parker-Rhodes was an accomplished linguist and mastered at least 23 languages, claiming that they became "easier after the first half-dozen"." seem hoax-ish. The reference placed after the latter quote didn't indicate anything about 23 languages, either. Perhaps I skimmed (the reference) too quickly. Levinge (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Reference #3 is a blog, not a RS, and the statements sourced to that should be removed. Other than than, this fellow most certainly meets the criteria for reliability; anyone listed in Gregory Ainsworth's (a noted mycological historian), Brief Biographies of British Mycologists automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notability, I would think. Regarding the languages, the cited source says: "A point worth drawing out here in passing is that AFPR ["Arthur Frederick Parker-Rhodes"], unlike most contemporary linguists, really did know languages, at least as regards reading them. He learned them as a hobby and would sometimes admit to twenty three: he said they became easier after the first half-dozen because you probably had a hook to hang a new one on." Sasata (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituary in the Times suffices. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More material to be added on Frederick Parker-Rhodes' wife Damaris,from her autobiographical book The way out is the way in (1985). Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of impeccable references, plus his publications, establish notability. --NSH001 (talk) 12:08, 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.

Shlomit Lehavi

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for courtesy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human trophy collecting

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

No evidence that this is a widely used term for this practice. Completely unsourced microstub. It exists but I find no single name to file it under. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Originator here, fully concur that the title isn't an official name. I had, when the article was made, solicited input on three different WikiProjects as to exactly what you would call this. I think it's relatively straightforward that there is some sort of behavioural motif in the various ways human remains are kept for symbolic/ceremonial use, in socially accepted ways (i.e. not by some psychopath). I have, however, not run across some clear way to label this social phenomenon. I'm not necessarily against this article (really more of a list) being deleted, but I do submit that, by one name or another, the category be maintained. I'd be fine going to CFD on the category to see if anyone has a better name for it. I just wouldn't want to see the entire idea of grouping together scalp taking, bone trumpets, skull cups, etc. go away. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Name is not really a problem, we could move it. What is missing is the lack of any references to prove that this concept is real and notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as above, 100% agree that there has to be a better name. But still argue that, per "common sense", there simply has to be a way to connect the various ways in which human remains are retained for (non-abnormal) reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is remarkably easy to find sources which discuss this topic using phrases such as The taking and displaying of human body parts as trophies... or The practise of collecting human skeletal remains as war trophies.... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a book Human Trophy Collecting: American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, Headhunting, Scalping, Mimizuka, Skull Cup, Anthropodermic Bibliopegy. Many books have surely been published about this subject, some already found. Article can be expanded. I recall how the Hawaiians went around preserving the skin of others, killing them to take their mana. Dream Focus 15:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are now references to print encyclopedias, as well as a quote from the Christian Bible. Throughout history this practice has been done for a variety of reasons. Dream Focus 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of "this practice", but have presented no evidence that this disparate grab-bag of social phenomena are in fact a single cohesive practice -- nor does the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacking a source unifying these loosely related practices, this article is WP:OR (WP:Synthesis if sources for the individual practices are found). Human Trophy Collecting: American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, Headhunting, Scalping, Mimizuka, Skull Cup, Anthropodermic Bibliopegy is published by General Books LLC and is a WIKIPEDIA MIRROR (most probably of this very article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although headhunting and scalping are encyclopedic terms, I am not sure a reader would search for this term or that it is in fact a term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a pretty good generic term applied to these practices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not entirely sure about the title but the content is a good overview to encompass relics, headhunting and scalping and creates interesting connections. Grolliers is a good source. --James R (talk) 25 January 2011

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the title of the article is not the best title possible is not a reason for deletion. The microstub has now been expanded and sourced. No other reasons for deletion have been offered in the nomination. SnottyWong ^chat 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now has some citations and is better written than many other stubs that have far less potential. As per Colonel Warden's refs there is clearly a topic here. Whether "here" is "Human trophy collecting" or elsewhere, moving is less of an issue than deleting.danno 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 6 inline citations and new material, this article has improved since the AfD, and should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish Brain Theory

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

Promotion for a non-notable fringe theory. Damiens.rf 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new theories - WP:NOT#OR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. JFW | T@lk 15:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This "new theory" isn't being published in Wikipedia first. Did no-one read the article? Citation four tells us outright that this thesis was first published in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, which is peer reviewed, some six and a half years ago. Original research is stuff that has not gone through the fact checking, peer review, and publication process; not stuff that has.
And this "non-notable" subject has been noted in the literature, such as, for example, in Campbell's review of the field of the energetics of the human brain (Campbell 2010, pp. 426–427) and Port's discussion of exotoxicity (Port 2010, pp. 266) amongst others.
This appears to be another case where "original research" is used incorrectly to label something as "university-level science, the article on which I don't understand because it's written as an academic would write on the subject". Academic style of writing does not equate to original research. And given the peer-reviewed nature of the original sources, and the fact that Campbell, Port, Dallman+Hellhammer (Dallman & Hellhammer 2009, pp. 13), and others have noted and acknowledged the contribution to the field in the six years since, this is in no way either original research or non-notable. This is verifiable, not original research, and noted. Stylistic problems with the article, such as the unsupported claims about "scientists the world over" and Socratic style inappropriate for reference material, are what cleanup is for.
This is a woeful and gross drive-by misapplication of our content policies by all four editors above. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Campbell, Benajmin C. (2010). "Human Biology, Energetics, and the Human Brain". In Muehlenbein, Michael P. (ed.). Human Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521705103.
- Port, Kristjan (2010). "Brain Plasticity and Motor Learning". In Thomson, Kaivo; Watt, Anthony (eds.). Connecting paradigms of motor behaviour to sport and physical education. Tallinn University Press. ISBN 9789985587041.
- Dallman, Mary F.; Hellhammer, Dirk (2009). "Regulation of the Hypothalamo—Pituitary—Adrenal Axis, Chronic Stress, and Energy: The Rôle of Brain Networks". In Contrada, Richard J.; Baum, Andrew (eds.). The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 9780826114716.
It reads as OR because, for example, in the section that's supposed to explain how it works, it doesn't cite papers on the Selfish Brain Theory, but rather papers that the creators of the SBT might have cited in their papers. We have to use secondary sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. I already pointed directly to citation four, the original paper by Peters et al. (which is cited by Campbell and others). It even has "selfish brain" in its title. Again I ask: Did you simply not read the article? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 23 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) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncle G has demolished the argument for deletion. See Models of the Human Metabolism for yet another source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – plenty of scholarly sources showing the notability of this theory, also beyond those already cited in the article or listed above by Uncle G. --Lambiam 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep really interesting article. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable per sources.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 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 keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 07:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil – People's Republic of China relations

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

Typical "X-Y relations" article: very short, synthesis, no sources. Very few of these relations were of lasting importance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's sole referenced source states that China is Brazil's largest trade partner, which would give value to this article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree the trade agreement gives value to the relations however is this really something which cannot be covered in Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China and Foreign relations of Brazil essentially you are creating an article based around one sentence. Afro (Talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tenmei (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Are you kidding? China is Brazil's largest trading partner. Brazil and China make up half of the influential BRIC group. This, This, This, and this all discuss the topic in-depth. How could you possibly think that it is not a notable relationship?--TM 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added references to articles specifically covering the relationship from 5 countries on 4 continents.--TM 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. See Brazil and China for another substantial source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that not all bilateral relations articles should be kept. However, Brazil and China are two large, important countries that have had substantial interactions. This article may need to be written better, with each individual interaction incorporated into flowing prose, but I think it is notable enough to be kept.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Both countries have large economy, and China is Brazil's largest trading partner. Here, Here, Here, Here Ahmetyal 16:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Even as someone who has normally voted delete on bilateral relations articles I was surprised to find this at AfD. Current article might not be that great but there is clear potential per the sources given by others, so shouldn't be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per improvements by TM, per the fact it easilly ranks among the worlds top 20 relationships, and as it has a stylish Groubani style map. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in international media. --Edcolins (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since nomination. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:10, 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. Will recreate as a redirect as it duplicates an existing article. If anyone is interested in salvaging any of this content to be merged elsewhere it can be userfied for that purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture and the environment

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

Redundant to nearly every article that it links to, woefully incomplete and unsourced as a result. Overly specific juncture. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, "_______ and the environment" -- you can fill in the blank with almost anything. A section about environmental impact in agriculture certain covers this topic. Yakushima (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The agriculture article does have a section on environmental impact but the topic is broader than impact alone and notable enough for a stand alone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. There are thousands of books with this title or something like it. The claim that the topic is overly specific is therefore blatantly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ill-thought-out, unsourced & incomplete WP:CFORK, most obviously of Environmental issues with agriculture -- there is already an article on "something like" "this title". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a content fork. Environmental issues with agriculture is about the environmental issues relating to agriculture whereas Agriculture and the environment is a broader topic that includes the issues and how to mitigate them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary and poorly-sourced/possibly POV sub-stub fork of Environmental issues with agriculture. No harm in a cheap redirect there. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything Environmental issues with agriculture is a POV fork of Agriculture. "Environmental issues" implies something negative and therefore open to a POV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, "issues" has neither a positive nor a negative connotation.--Kinu ^t/_c 03:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where would this fit at {{Agriculture}}? Suggests there should be similar articles such as Transportation and the environment or Mining and the environment?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is eminently suitable a link in {{Agriculture}}. Also, the two article titles you mention are likely to be created in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly an unnecessary content fork. SnottyWong ^prattle 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge two articles to whichever one is dominant. Google news and Google book search both show ample results to look through, but if another article exist already, no need to bother. Redirect to Environmental issues with agriculture and merge anything not already there. The other article seems to have a more appropriate name. Dream Focus 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of article hierarchy Environmental issues with agriculture would be subservient to Agriculture and the environment and therefore a merge of the former into the latter (leaving a redirect) would be more appropriate. However, I feel they should both exist to give the reader a wide selection of topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't most of the information just the same though? Is there enough unique information in each article for them to exist separately? Or is there the potential for unique information to be added which would fit in one article but not the other? Dream Focus 11:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic for which a large amount of reliably sourced info can be found. It fills a a gap in the range of articles on agriculture and the environment. Have a read of my essay "On filling the gaps" for more info. Also, a similar AfD was done for the Environmental issues with energy article. See the AfD here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "woefully incomplete and unsourced" are not reasons for an AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is however an aggravating factor to "redundant"/WP:CFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 28 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. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10ZiG Technology Ltd

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

This article is about an interesting but apparently non-notable company. While there are hits in some news archive databases for the company's current and former names, they all appear to be reprints of various press releases from the company or its various partner companies. I cannot find any reliable source that mentions the company more than simply in passing, certainly nothing that indicates "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Three citations were recently added to the article: two are press releases, which are not reliable secondary sources for establishing notability, while the third is a listing in a BusinessWeek directory of businesses from CapitalIQ (which compiles databases of thousands of companies, many of them almost certainly not notable, for sale and market research). None of the three of these sources, nor any others that I can find, establish notability per our guidelines. jæs (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—The VendorRate report does appear to be a legitimately notable publication, so that may also be considered an independent secondary source. The fact that they rated 10ZiG Technology as one of the "top rated vendors for overall customer satisfaction in 2009" stakes a claim for notability.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The VendorRate source isn't a "report," it's a press release,^[31] which means it is not a reliable source. jæs (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about page 5 of this(PDF)?—RJH (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still a primary source from a non-notable, not reliable "publication." jæs (talk) 23:01, 17 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) 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've spent a fair bit of time reviewing the contributions of User:Jcalamity, the editor who created this article. Aside from a few "good hand" early edits, almost all of their edits since have been to insert various spam or refspam into articles. It looks like 10ZiG has been their only article creation, however. Based on the significant breadth of the subject matter for their spamming, I strongly suspect some sort of paid editing or other "public relations" scenario. jæs (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nomination asserts, there is very little in the way of WP:RS providing actual information/useful commentary about the subject. Most of what is provided for references is actually press releases, company profiles, and other awards/accolades of dubious importance. Appears to be thinly-veiled jargon-laced WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if marginally notable I don't think we should be keeping articles where apparent COI throws the article's neutrality in doubt. If unconflicted editors get interested in the topic sometime later, they can write a new article. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a spam advert. Qworty (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:CORP as sources do not demonstrate notability and a heavy dose of "spam masquerading as an article". ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ukexpat and Jaes. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 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 redirect. Any content worth merging may be pulled form the page history. I would also note that "I'm an inclusionist" and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments.Beeblebrox (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry Quebec

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

Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) tagged this for speedy as a non-notable website but no admin seems willing to delete it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking for sources, only found a University newspaper and a brief mention in an actual RS (Montreal Gazette). There doesn't seem to be significant coverage.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckgsmith (talk · contribs)Other notable reference found in the CBC (a major canadian television channel). I have to say though qwf (references 1 on the article)

plays a prominent role in the life of the Quebec English-language literary community as an arts presenter and professional and community educator, and as the primary representative of Quebec's English-language writers. Its vision involves working toward ensuring a lasting place for English literature and its practitioners on the Quebec cultural scene.

— Quebec Writers' Federation, [[About Page]]

Comment - all the sources only give passing mention to Poetry Quebec, and rather point to the notability of Carolyn Marie Souaid, who already has an article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:51, 22 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) 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or merge with Carolyn Marie Souaid Personally, I say KEEP, but then again I am an inclusionist, and who knows who may find this article useful. Until I decided to browse AfD cause I was bored, I had never heard of it, but now I've gone to the website and have bookmarked the site. If it can't be kept because of deletionist sentiment, then I would hope to see it merged. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it :) --C.J. (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be OK with a merge to Carolyn Marie Souaid as well.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carolyn Marie Souaid. Article does not seem to have enough non-trivial sources to establish notability. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:52, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Smith (musician)

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

No doubt Mr Smith is a fine Cellist and accomplished Audio engineer, but it would appear that he has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. As always: please, do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 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, 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) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 18:05, 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. The good-faith efforts at improvement are acknowledged and appreciated, but unfortunately they do not seem to have found sufficient evidence of widespread notability. Anyone who appears on a television show can manage a few blurbs in their hometown paper, the other new references do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mathews

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

Article about an artist whose sole claim to fame is having appeared on America's Got Talent. But that does not meet any of the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, nor is WP:GNG met because it is the show that is notable, not the contestant. I42 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to add more information about the notability of Taylor Mathews. I am wondering if adding the following section will be enough:
After America's Got Talent After appearing on the show, Taylor participated in the America's Got Talent National Tour. The tour crossed 25 cities in just over a month.^[1] Taylor also appeared on the cover of Louisiana NEXT magazine and was featured in an article that highlights stars originating from Louisiana.^[2] Since that time, Taylor has played shows to sold out crowds alongside Emily Osment and Michael Grimm. Taylor has also been named the Grand Marshall of the 2011 Alexandria Mardi Gras Association Krewes Parade.^[3]
References

I am new to the Wiki thing and I am trying my best to get this article where it needs to be. I appreciate any feedback. LuvnChrist44 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, those references help but don't appear to be enough. The question is: has this artist crossed from being a player in America's Got Talent (no independent notability) to an artist notable in their own right? Those three refs all mention him in the context of AGT, suggesting it has not (yet) happened. I42 (talk) 16:19, 11 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, 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) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be notable only for being a reality TV show contestant, whioch doesn't make him notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but leaning toward weak keep. Found this and this, not sure about the second one though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 29 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.

[1] ttp://www.tv.com/top-10-acts-to-perform-on-americas-got-talent-tour/webnews/147513.html

[2] ttp://www.lanext.com/articles/?article_id=78

[3] ttp://www.alexmardigras.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]