Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 24

< 23 January	25 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 speedy deleted by Dreadstar (talk · contribs); reason was "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of gothic

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

Not an encyclopedic topic. Seems to be WP:MADEUP. WP:PROD declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Based on the text of the "article" itself, it is entirely made up, non-notable, and merely an "idea" dreamed up by someone last year.Agent 86 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Bill

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

There are currently no sources other than YouTube videos to verify the notability of this person. I was unable to find any sources to assist. Has been unreferenced for at least 10 months now. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that active here in wiki anymore, his notability is not a question, he's a legend of french muaythai and is a former 9 time world champion. interview with him [1].Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I promise I'm not questioning his notability. What I am saying is that the article currently falls afoul of our verifiability guidelines as there's nothing substantiate his claims to notability. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 13:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps this article could do with some more sources but I think a deletion would be harsh as it is well written and informative. -- WölffReik (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article may as well be unsourced at the moment as none of the sources provided meet WP:RS All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazing how someone so obviously notable can be so hard to reference; amazing also that I've been trying to as I am very definitely not a sports enthusiast... There must be something to show his titles are the real thing. That would surely satisfy BLP and GNG. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to this article in the very reliable Le Parisien, as of March 11 2006 Dany Bill had a record of 87 wins and only 9 losses ("Dany Bill (87 victoires, 9 défaites)") and this article, also from Le Parisien, confirms his status as 7 time world champion ("Dans l'ombre de l'étoile du RMB, Dany Bill (sept fois champion du monde)"). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That'll do me, but if anyone can find more it would make things totally secure. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as French Senior Muay Thai Champion and as World Muay Thai Champion. Xajaso (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a well known fighter and I'm glad someone was able to find third party sources to lend some support. This article is another example of how hard it can be to adequately source martial arts articles. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Dyson

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

Non-notable actress. None of the biographical details in this article can be verified by any source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her imdb page lists a fair number of movies but no Google News hits referring to her. WikiManOne (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by a sockpuppet violating their block, so it could theoretically be deleted per WP:CSD#G5, if notability isn't in question as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Anemone Projectors 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft seat map

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

Aircraft seat maps are not a notable topic. The article has been unsourced since its creation and tagged since 2007. The current article seems to mostly serve as a host for links to commercial websites advising travelers on seat selection. Will Beback talk 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change the title back to the original, Aircraft seat configuration), adding material from the various good asources that are actually available.( title to Aircraft seat configuration at Google Books. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which are the best sources? The sources I see in the Google Books link appear to be short mentions. Could this be merged in with Airliner or Aircraft cabin (another unsourced article)? Will Beback talk 02:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to have a lot of potential. For example, here's a detailed account of algorithms for seat inventory and allocation: Airline Operations and Scheduling. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you linked to in that source source seems to be on a different topic entirely - how to structure fares. There's a later chapter in that book on "Aircraft boarding strategy" which is a little closer, but it's still a different topic. Will Beback talk 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject matter is notable. There are websites dedicated to the topic alone, and news reports comparing airlines to each other. Certainly, the article as presented here is not written very well, but that is not a reason to delete. I agree that the article should be renamed. The new name should reflect the fact that only airliners are compared, and there should be no confusion that the seats contain maps, or are upholstered with map material. :P Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest some specific ources? Will Beback talk 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can. Some can be harvested from the SeatGuru article. Others: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
  - Perhaps the name should be Airliner seat arrangement. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, some of those look usable. What about Airline seating as a title? That could cover the actual seats as well, which are occasionally written about. Will Beback talk 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your article name suggestion 'Airline seating' is appropriate. I'm flexible on that, for sure. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Airline seating#Seating layout seems to cover seating maps already. Maybe we should just merge this material and redirect this title to that section. Will Beback talk 05:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That suggestion returns us to the discussion of whether there is enough material in the topic to merit its own article, specifically whether it might be expanded to swamp the Airline seat#Seating layout section with too much detail. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If we remove the unsourced material from the "seat map" article then there will be zero text left. I don't think that would swamp the other article. That article already contains significant material on the topic, and it has some sources. If the section gets too long then it could all be split off together. Will Beback talk 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I was imagining a larger version that contained more referenced text on the topic. I was not examining what was already here and holding that as the maximum possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my knowledge there is no other encyclopaedia in the world which can tell you that Lufthansa doesn't have row numbers 13 (unlucky?) and 17 (I'd love to know why!). That alone justifies a Keep ;-) ... OK, I added that information myself but it's true (and sourced) --TraceyR (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Airline seat#Seating layout as suggested above. In particular, adding the discussion of how the airlines use the seat maps (as mentioned in the last paragraph of the Airline seat article section) is needed. The discussion of how seats are designated (number-letter pattern, skipped letters and row numbers) better belongs in the Airline seat article anyway, since those are seating layout issues that are reflected in the map, and not an intrinsic features of the map itself. As an alternative to the merge, the article can be Kept, but a cleanup is needed: Adding sources, removing or fixing unsubstantiated opinion statements ("but the quality of these seat maps is sometimes questionable"), and moving content that doesn't belong to other articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat. I don't see there would be enough material to justify an independent article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat, per user GraemeLeggett. Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(I love Wikipedia!)} 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat. Jumping on the bandwagon. Will Beback talk 11:25, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. The only delete !vote was in regards to reliable sources, which was what prompted the nomination. The nomination was withdrawn due to a reliable source being found, which cancels out the only delete !vote. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 07:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Verderame

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

Notability concerns: Can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this putative singer in order to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Long-term unsourced BLP. Contested PROD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why you want to delete this page: Luigi (this, without his last name, was his stage name) was a very well known singer in the 60s, at least in Europe and the middle east. He had two very well known hits, "Pitie" and "Une Maman", which you can still find all around, including in youtube, for example [9] and [10]. In those video clips, you can also see photographs of his albums, and newspaper clippings about him (I don't know who created these clips, and don't have access to the original material). In [11] you can find many of his songs in mp3 format. Finally, if you still don't believe he's notable, I also found a book source: Dictionnaire de la chanson en Wallonie et à Bruxelles By Robert Wangermée, Pascale Vandervellen, 1995, page 231. See on Google books: [12], which has a short biography of Luigi, confirming some of the material in this article (though possibly the article can be further improved with this new-found source). I hope that this singer is, or at least was, notable. I don't understand why you insist to delete his article. Nyh (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Youtube clips aren't a reliable source. But the "Dictionnaire de la chanson en Wallonie et à Bruxelles" entry found by Nyh (thanks!) is. The subject's career predates widespread internet coverage so there's likely more offline, and not in English. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom I withdraw my own objection to the article based on the book source found by Nyh. I missed it in my own search. (As per Whpq, the video sources are *not* WP:RS, and I'd suggest people reread that and WP:BLP ifthere is any question as to why.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added that source to the article, and updated the maint. tags to reflect that. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that although the book I found answers once and for all that Luigi was a notable singer (and not some kid singing in a school play ;-)), it doesn't actually verify some of specific details now on the article. I believe that it was actually I that added most (if not all) these details several years ago, based on details I found in the information booklet of a Luigi CD that I own. Indeed, many of these details should be better verified, I am not disagreeing with that. Any many more details are missing (e.g., I have no idea what he's doing today). I only insisted that he was in fact a notable singer.Nyh (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but that's an editing issue, not a reason to delete, I think we (now) agree on that, too. Cheers. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Campbell (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. Citations are broken. IMDB page exists but does not support assertions in the article. Possible hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by a sockpuppet violating their block, so it could theoretically be deleted per WP:CSD#G5, if notability isn't in question as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5. References don't exist other than IMDb, which shows the actor only had four roles so doesn't appear to be notable. Anemone Projectors 16:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 02:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free variation

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

Article should be deleted WP:Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Securel (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Free variation" is, as far as I can see, a technical term in linguistics. Googling it brings up numerous dictionary and encyclopedic references, as well as lectures and general articles on linguistics: ([13], [14], [15]). Like open source or dilation, it needs to be defined in a specific context, as the words themselves have multiple meanings, so that it can be used with clarity in other linguistic settings. Bielle (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, established scholarly term. --Lambiam 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a technical term in linguistics, as the cited source attests. Cnilep (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well established term of linguistics. It's most certainly not a neologism; I don't know who coined it and when, but according to a quote on this page, Charles F. Hockett used the term as long ago as 1942, so it's at least 70 years old. I'll try to hunt down some more sources. —Angr (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is riduculous. It is a basic term that one would encounter in every probably introduction to linguistic theory. With respect to the dictionary complaint, there is plenty to say about it. For example, inter-speaker versus intra-speaker variation. Does free variation really exist given what sociolinguists have found? Do speakers control variation? – ishwar (speak) 04:09, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Community Foundation

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

Seems to Fails WP:CORP low Gnews Hits, it exists but does not seem to have received significant coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been reported by multiple sources to be the largest community foundation in the United States (by a substantial margin)[16][17][18][19], and it is the subject of substantial coverage both locally [20][21][22] and in national publications such as The New York Times[23]. Plenty of sources available to develop a substantive article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos.--SteamIron 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arxiloxos makes a compelling case. Banaticus (talk) 06:03, 31 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. Deletion rationale has been refuted - both verifiable and true. Isofar as "only a word" refers to WP:DICT, this deletion argument has also been shown to be wrong. No delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uttering

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

It is not a crime to be caught "uttering". "Uttering" is not the crime, but is just a word being used to describe a crime such as “uttering of false money”, or “uttering and publishing an alleged fictitious instrument in writing", or “forgery and the uttering of a forged instrument”. The word “uttering” in itself, is just a word, and the act of “uttering”, in itself, is not a crime. This article should be deleted as it is false and unverifiable. Securel (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I even understand the rationale for the nomination. Uttering is clearly a crime in several countries. See the sources in the article (e.g., "Forgery per se is not a crime. The crime is uttering, i.e. using as genuine a fabricated writing falsely intended to pass as genuine the writing of another person."[24]) or this quote: "Uttering (Va. Code 18.2-172) is a separate and distinct offense from forgery. The crime of forgery is complete when the accused has made or altered the writing with the intent to defraud. The crime of uttering occurs when the accused uses or attempts to use a forged writing..."[25] Yes, I suppose something must be uttered just as something must be stolen, someone must be murdered, &c., but that doesn't preclude having an article under those titles at Wikipedia. — AjaxSmack 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Numerous sources in the article show that "Uttering" is indeed the crime.

This criminal law book for example has a section headed "The crime of uttering." It goes on to say: "When a forged check is presented for payment, the felony of uttering has been committed. The Supreme Court of Virginia defined the crime of uttering...."

This book has a separate section, again headed simply "Uttering" which says for example: "Figure 3–6 outlines the elements required for the crime of uttering."

Crime: Computer Viruses to Twin Towers - Page 29: "The crime of uttering consists of offering a forged document as true and genuine, ..."

Criminal law and procedure p132: "In many jurisdictions, forgery and uttering are separate crimes."

The article is clearly verifiable and the nominator is incorrect in describing it as false. Valenciano (talk) 07:32, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapido Realismo Kali

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

A poor article which shouldn't have escaped deletion the first time it has poor notability and lacking in sufficient sources to justify a solo article like the first nomination Dwanyewest (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This art is referenced in several issues of the FMA Digest. However, when I looked at one of the articles it gave the ___location and class schedules for schools offering this art. That doesn't look like independent coverage to me. The magazine itself says "ideas and opinions expressed in this digest are those of the authors ... and are not necessarily the views of the publisher or editor." That makes me question the magazine's editorial oversight. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per verifiability issues as detailed above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage that shows notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:39, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid arnis

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

A non notable martial arts style without reliable third person sources to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that fails to show notability. I got a lot of ghits, but not reliable sources. There's a lot of comments on it at various forums, but nothing reliable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claims of notability and I found no independent sources to support this art's notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 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 no consensus. Leaning towards merge into Uechi-ryu due to lack of relative independent notability. Either way, the article will be kept, and merge discussions can continue on the talk page, pending addition of further reliable sources to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei-ryu

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

A non notable martial art without any reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was proposed for deletion for the same reason before, and the decision was keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shohei-ryu What has changed since the last nomination? If nothing, then shouldn't you withdraw the nomination? Francis Bond (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Uechi-ryu. I think this article lacks the independent sources for an article of its own, but it seems like a good candidate to be part of the article on its parent style. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Uechi-ryu. I think there's enough out there to show notability, or at least enough to keep this article from being completely deleted. Astudent0 (talk) 14:11, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Uechi-ryū, following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:44, 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, Dusti^*poke* 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is the name and group of a very notable traditional okinawan martial art. as stated in the article, "Ryuko Tomoyose (Shohei-ryu Hanshi 10th Dan) was recognized as an Intangible Cultural Asset holder in the Field of Okinawan Karate and Martial Arts with Weaponry by the Okinawa Prefecture in 2000." that alone makes it a notable martial art with a reliable third person source no? Eric235u (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Filotti

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

Even assuming good faith that the dead link to the PDF mentioned him in passing, the subject is still not worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Let's analyse each claim of notability and show why it lacks merit:

That he was head of a county party organisation. In tandem with elective office, or with particular notoriety in this position, that may mean notability, but not by itself.
That he was secretary general at a ministry. Well, as you can see from that ministry's organisational chart (which I'm sure has changed since the 1920s, but the basic idea is the same), "secretary general" is just another government functionary, one who doesn't even form part of the ministry's leadership. It's certainly not a position of ministerial rank.
That he held a position at the Bucharest Stock Exchange. And...?
That he had to leave this position under a cloud. Again, if his departure was widely publicised in newspapers of the day, or in later scholarly works, that would be something. But we have no evidence of that.

Filotti seems to have had an interesting enough career, but nothing in particular raises him above the millions of others with interesting enough careers, and therefore we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in line with my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti. This, unlike a couple of Filotti articles which are notable, is only part of the countless Filotti cruft articles that we seem to have been plagued with here. See Filotti family for what I mean. Dahn (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Nordli

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. A one-time nude photoshoot is not, in my opinion, a very strong claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is almost completely WP:OR about an unnotable individual. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be that much to say about the subject based on what we can find in reliable independent sources. I can't find evidence that she decided to remain a model after her appearances in the Playboy "Starbucks" pictorial and DVD in 2003, or that she has otherwise tried to remain in the public eye since promoting those items when they were released seven years ago. Of course, this deletion should be without prejudice to a restoration if she is later found to be notable again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage [cough cough] that I can find. When even many Playmates of the Month have lost their articles, it's clear that the standard is much higher than a one-off appearance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 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) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Van De Velde (Lingerie)

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

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. —Tom Morris 16:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Van de Velde N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable lingerie line about which not much can be said except WP:ITEXISTS. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no strong opinion either way, but just wanted to point out there's a lengthy case study in this economics book on this company's decision to move their operations away from Asia to Europe. - ManicSpider (talk) 12:17, 8 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:30, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pieces in business press like Bloomberg [26] suggests its notable enough for inclusion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another RS with significant coverage: The Washington Post [27]. --Lambiam 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lingerie company that clearly meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above and via a general search. The company was founded in 1919 for Christ's sake. The article isn't about the lingerie itself; it obviously was misnamed. Instead of making a big production out of this, you should have just moved the article to Van de Velde N.V..[28] N.V. is the Dutch term for a public limited liability company and Wikipedia has plenty of articles on such companies: European Multilateral Clearing Facility N.V., InTouch N.V., Option N.V., Postbank N.V., TNT N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I moved the article to Van de Velde N.V.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable major company, as shown by the article & the sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, Uzma Gamal. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly: iStart a Fan War

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

No sources, episode not notable enough for a separate article. Confession0791 ^talk 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. It's also more than a bit of a stretch to call a 47-minute segment of a kid's show a "movie". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't blame the editors, blame the network. They call every hour-long episode of their shows a 'movie' even if it's the regular laugh track/video-shot show. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged the page with numerous problems. Not sourced, possible OR. I am in favour of deletion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:25 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per comments above. WereWolf (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it does have many problems, which have been mentioned, and tagged, but past hour long episodes have their own articles, it just needs to be cleaned up. 117Avenue (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WereWolf (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya... I know. 117Avenue (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is in horrible shape, even if it were notable (which I do not believe it is) it would require a fundamental rewrite to be of encyclopedic value. WikiManOne (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iCarly (season 4)#Episodes Nothing salvageable from this 'episode description' disguised as both a poor recap written by someone who needs to concentrate on their social studies homework, and a fan rant involving show ships and the program's producer. Probably best to redirect to the season article as at least we can source the ep description in some way. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 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 no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. If merged, the history must be retained and a redirect left in place per WP:MAD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Burmese History

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

Massively and systematically biased article. Too many issues POV,OR,SYN,NPOV, see below Soewinhan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (nominator) -This article is just a collection of Indian related cases from Prehistory of Burma, Origins of Burmese Indians and History of Rakhine articles. As shown in its title, this article tries to highlight roles of Indians in Burmese history. That itself wrong in the first place. Because history of Burma is not only about Indians. Attempting to highlight violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI.

Citations given are inaccurate and too many totally wrong claims like saying Pyu Kings were Maharajas.

But, the reason I request to delete is that this article will always be biased. Because the subject matter is History of Burma, which involves too many cases and races in the cause of history. By this article itself, we are giving undue weight to Indian related cases. Soewinhan (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively -- This is a substantial article with a lot of citations, and should not be deleted out of hand, becuase it offends the nom; if there is rubbish in it, this should be corrected. The substantive content appears to have two major themes - Pyu and the history of Arakan. As a border region facing the coast, it is almost inevitable that the history of Arakan should be separate from that of the core of Burma. Accordingly the material on that should be in a separate article, but we have one already, History of Rakhine. There is significant material on Pyu city-states, which might conveniently be merged there. When both these classes of material are merged (and removed), there will probably not be much left; if so, can then be deleted. BTW, the article Pyu city-states DOES say the kings were Maharajas. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 16 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, Ged UK 08:15, 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, Dusti^*poke* 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No change -- I stand by my previous comment, but do not know enough to undertake the merge myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Kloeker

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:216.196.139.146 Rationale from talk page is: "I just came across this today and it appears to have quite a few notability issues and the article itself has been entirely edited by Erik Kloeker (Users User:Erikkloeker and User:Edit_tore_n_chief)." RoninBK _{T C} 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable thing appears to be the Guinness world record, in itself I don't think holders of such records are automatically wiki notable, so unless someone points me to some guideline that says they are, I support deletion, as not passing the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the Guinness book can likely be treated as a reliable source supporting notability, their criteria for bestowing an award is significantly strict. That being said, in most cases multiple sources are expected before the GNG can be considered satisfied. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not reliably sourced, autobiography..Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of independent reports. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban-pull factors

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem useful as a redirect to urbanization, and provides no useful content. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 24 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, Dusti^*poke* 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Similar to Urban migration; which is also redirect to Urbanization. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Hoffman

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

Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Previously deleted for A7, then recreated by the wife of the subject. The only sources that mention the subject include a blog and YouTube. Cind.amuse 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. (I think I may have been the one who originally speedied this before it was re-created - it certainly looks familiar, which suggests that the re-creator hasn't bothered to add anything.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who cannot view deleted revisions: This page has been created 3 times by User:Margelit. The first was on 5 January, it was speedily deleted 10 hours later. The page was recreated on 9 January, again speedily deleted. It was then recreated in its current form on 16 January, nominated for speedy then declined and is now here at AFD. The content is approximately identical in each iteration, with some differences in external linking and detail. Hope that's helpful! l'aquatique[talk] 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Graham

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

There do not appear to be substantial third party sources, despite efforts of other editor to find such sources. So, notability isn't established. There's no good basis to write a neutral article, since the sources are not neutral. Rob (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The efforts of a single day cannot be the basis for this nomination. I have completely rewritten the article, removed the original contents and tried to find sources. Instead of helping me in my efforts to turn this into a useful article, you nominate it for deletion, not even hours after I've written the article. I contest the decision to nominate the article for deletion since this would require Wikipedia to delete almost all related articles in the Absolute Radio section as well. M.wernicke (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples for the articles of her colleagues at Absolute Radio:

Sarah Champion = 0 references Christian O'Connell = no references regarding his career or personal life, most sections without any references at all Nick Jackson = no references regarding the stations he has worked for (O 106, BRMB, Heart FM etc.) M.wernicke (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the requester to outline which sections violate the guidelines and to what extend for these individual sections further sources should be added. I have a genuine interest in improving this article and I would appreciate any possible help. M.wernicke (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. A quick look at the current references:

- Biography on debretts.com

Site with no real reason to be considered authoritive. Has "biographies" of over twenty five thousand people in the UK alone, it states that "The focus of the editors has always been on making People of Today as meritocratic and contemporary as possible. We are strong in our coverage of the younger professions such as the media, and we count among our entrants the increasing number of celebrity chefs, up-and-coming actors and pop stars. We pride ourselves on recognising early success as well as lifetime achievement. This is made possible by the fact that it is our policy to remove entrants who no longer fulfil our criteria.." [29] which is great, but Wikipedia doesn't do articles on people that may one day require deletion.

- Blog entry "A Brief History of Virgin Radio by Adam Bowie" at One Golden Square

Blog post on non-notable site that only states "In April, Leona Graham joined the station, taking over from Gail Porter who had been covering weekend evenings." Seems to be another trivial mention from a primary source.

- Leona Graham's profile on Absolute Radio's website
- Leona Graham's biography on her official website

Both of these are primary sources and do not establish notability.

- The Independent of 22 August 2005 regarding her involvement with Radio Warwick

Lists of radio station which lists her in a sub-list of participants on a single radio station's listing. This would be trivial for the station, certainly for her.

- Trewin, Janet (2003). "Presenting on TV and radio: an insider's guide", Focal Press.

Not a link, cannot evaluate.

- Leona Graham's professional profile and CV at Linkedin
- Radio career on Leona Graham's official website

Primary sources

- The Guardian, June 7th, 2004: "Music fades for Virgin DJs"

Yet another trivial mention: "Leona Graham is taking over the Saturday breakfast show"

- Schedule on LeonaGraham.org

Primary Source

- The Times Online of August 1st, 2008: People: Tony Blair, Gillian Anderson, Alice Cooper and Katie Price

Trivial mention "Alice Cooper tells Leona Graham on Virgin Radio that criticism of his band by Mary Whitehouse"

- List of recent audio and video interviews
- Voiceovers section on her professional website
- rhubarb.co.uk artist page for Leona Graham

Primary Sources

- 2010 Sony Radio Academy Awards, category "Best Station Imaging"

Trivial mention, one of many names on that page

- Blog post regarding Absolute Radio's nominations at the 2010 Sony Radio Academy Awards

Primary source

These sources clearly do not establish notability. WikiManOne (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

Most sources are used as reference just for a single fact, like "She joined in 2000" or "She worked at Radio Warwick" or "She did the breakfast show" or "Absolute won an Award" or "She did an interview with Brian Johnson". And to establish that it is unnecessary to find a whole article explaining that in 300 words. If you applied your principles to the remaining articles in the "Absolute Radio DJs" section, almost all of them would have to be deleted as these articles usually do not have any notable references at all. M.wernicke (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue is not whether the claims in the article are true or not, the issue here is whether she is notable, and the citations do not (seem to) show that per WP:ENT. Also, the fact that similar articles exist is not a argument to keep any article per WP:OTHERCRAP. WikiManOne (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, WikiManOne, for responding. I did believe until now that references exist mainly to provide prove for facts mentioned in the article. If that is not their primary function, then maybe I did it all wrong. As I was explaining before, I have re-written the article in an effort to prevent its deletion, as before it has been said that it lacked notability solely because of a lack of proof for the facts mentioned. Leona Graham is a presenter at one of the UK's best-known radio stations, Absolute Radio, and has worked for its predecessor Virgin Radio since the early 2000s. Her best-known programme, the Absolute Classic Rock Party alone is broadcast on a prime time slot on Saturday evenings. That show has been in place there for many years --- most likely because of a huge demand, meaning a lot of listeners. If that does not make her notable, then what does? M.wernicke (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, citations are used to prove facts in the article. Everything in an article should have citations whether primary or otherwise to "prove" assertions. However, in order to have an article on a topic, notability has to be established by secondary sources. From WP:BA SIC, this may come into play here:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

I would say that if there were a fair number of references from secondary sources (the times and guardian being examples) that this article could stay, but it needs many more than what it currently has. Therefore, I am changing my vote to Neutral with the expectation that more work will be done to find these sources.WikiManOne (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WikiManOne, for taking that into account. I would like to further contribute to this article and add more sources. But since I have so far used references only to prove facts mentioned in the article itself, I am having trouble as to how and where to add further references. There are some more mentions in the Guardian for example, but they are of a general nature: references to her voice and style, mentions of her time slots being changed, references of her staying with Virgin Radio/Absolute Radio when it was sold to its current owners etc. --- Where do you suggest I put the links to these articles when they aren't necessarily connected directly to a part of the article?

In response to your last comment I would like to add this thought: While certain people in radio might provoke wide media coverage (such as Howard Stern for example) due to their desire to get as much attention as possible, others might choose not to seek the public to such extend. It is likely that a British presenter, while well-known by his name in the UK, may not receive any media coverage at all. Leona Graham is mentioned in quite a few sources for her voice and style and her name was brought up quite frequently when Virgin Radio was sold and questions arose as to which presenters might stay with the station. She is even used as a case-study for being a national radio DJ in a book (see source, available on Google Books) read frequently by journalism students. I believe that shows notability to some extend,

Again, I would be willing to edit the article further to establish notability according to the guidelines--- and I would appreciate some help in the process.

If you have additional sources, like the Guardian, you should just go ahead and them right away. It's ok to redundantly source the same fact, even obvious facts, with multiple citations. Any source mentioning she is a broadcaster or voiceover artist could be used as a citation for the first sentence. You might also wish to add a "Further reading" section, if you find useful information about the topic, which doesn't work as a citation. Regardless, if you have relevant, 3rd party, reliable sources, then please definitely add them. --Rob (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M.wernicke (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now There seems to be some serious effort at proper sourcing. I haven't invested the time to review the sources properly, so I think it's best to leave the article for now, and give editors a chance to improve the sourcing. --Rob (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern weapons by country

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

Another indiscriminate, unreferenced (bar one, from Indonesia-!) list that attempts to compile all "post 1945 weapons by country". Such a list would be of a size to send Godzilla screaming in terror if it was complete; even limited to personal weapons, which appears to be its intent, it would be "Listra". And why a 1945 cutoff, when many weapons made earlier remain in service and are just as effective? "Modern" is an arbitrary conceit, I'm afraid. I appreciate the effort that went into this, but I don't see how such a list is of any value to Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary, unsourced, unnecessary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate summary list, should be more closely linked to the appropriate detailed articles on the weapon or type of weapon, which will provide the references. If limited to those weapons that have Wikipedia articles or sections of Wikipedia articles, how can it possibly be too large for Wikipedia. (And I think 1945 is a conventional cutoff point in military history--I wouldn't object, though, to also merging with earlier periods in a comprehensive list, though it would still be helpful to have one on historical periods) DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not indiscriminate, per DGG, and my arguments on similar weapons lists AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given the huge number of weapons most national militaries are equipped with this is an unmanageable topic for an article. Definitional issues also render it highly problematic (eg, what's a 'modern weapon'?) Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the list is indiscriminate, even if it does have some limits to the scope, precisely because that scope is so wide. Simply attempting to list weapons post-1945 is a gargantuan undertaking, and the current list is wildly incomplete to the point of being POV on what it omits. The definition of a "modern weapon" is pretty subjective, but supposing that we could accept "post-1945" as the definition for the sake of argument, then we have to define the what should be in the scope: rifles, carbines, submachineguns, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, other small arms, mortars, artillery, tanks, ship guns, aircraft, bombs, missiles, mines, nukes (some of which don't fit neatly into one category or the other)? What a bout melee weapons and other non-firearms (like modern crossbows)? What about defining countries, like the Soviet Union, Taiwan, Kosovo? What about non-government armies and organizations that fight, like the UN, Al-Qaeda, the IRA, or the Branch Davidians? The size of such a list would not only be unfeasable, unmaintainable, and unreadable, but it would probably impossible to gather into the list in the first place, not to mention being redundant to the other lists with much more specific and narrow scopes. I'd be willing to cast a keep vote if the list was renamed to "list of post-1945 small arms by operators" and the scope made much more clear. Admin note: my rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons by type is much the same premise. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 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 By further explanation, the objections have been that this has always been an unsourced, including the definition of modern as being all post-1945 firearms, overly wide in scope, and indiscriminate. Mandsford 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern weapons by type

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

Wildly indiscriminate list, that purports to list all "Post 1945" (sic) weapons by type. Such a list would be gargantuan, even confined to personal weapons and light autocannons (and how is "light" defined?), which it appears to be. List is also rather incomplete. (Although it does include the dreaded "Stun cell phone"!) Unencyclopediatic, indiscriminiate, completely unreferenced. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate summary list, should be more closely linked to the appropriate detailed articles on the weapon or class of weapon, which will provide the references. If limited to those weapons that have Wikipedia articles or sections of Wikipedia articles, how can it possibly be too large for Wikipedia. (And I think 1945 is a conventional cutoff point in military history--I wouldn't object, though, to also merging with earlier periods in a comprehensive list, though it would still be helpful to have one on historical periods) DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is self-defeating: it undermines its own "indiscriminate" assertion by noting that the list is, in fact, discriminate. The list is theoretically completable as well, although there's a good argument to be made for breaking this down by category (pistols, rifles, crew-served weapons, etc.) for a more manageable size, in which case this article could reasonably become a list of lists. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This kind of thing would be better accomplished via a category tree. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the list is indiscriminate, even if it does have some limits to the scope, precisely because that scope is so wide. Simply attempting to list weapons post-1945 is a gargantuan undertaking, and the current list is wildly incomplete to the point of being POV on what it omits. The definition of a "modern weapon" is pretty subjective, but supposing that we could accept "post-1945" as the definition for the sake of argument, then we have to define the types: rifles, carbines, submachineguns, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, other small arms (some of which don't fit neatly into one category or the other)? What about larger weapons, like mortars, artillery, tanks, ship guns, aircraft, bombs, missiles, mines, nukes? What a bout melee weapons and other non-firearms (like modern crossbows?) The size of such a list would not only be unfeasable, unmaintainable, and unreadable, but it would probably impossible to gather into the list in the first place, not to mention being redundant to the other lists with much more specific and narrow scopes. I'd be willing to cast a keep vote if the list was renamed to "list of post-1945 small arms" and the scope made much more clear. Admin note: my rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern weapons by country is going to much the same premise. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcus Qwertyus 09:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmanageably wide scope. Sandstein 07:11, 2 February 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 There are several arguments made for deletion, one that the definition of "modern" is debatable, that it is incomplete, that it is unsourced, or that it is "indiscriminate". Not all lists are indiscriminate, and in this case, there is some discriminating information in a sortable table, listing the manufacturer and the nation of origin. The objections concerning sourcing and the title "modern" are valid, but not beyond fixing through normal editing. Mandsford 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern armament manufacturers

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

Unreferenced, indiscriminate list. How are "modern weapons and munitions" defined? Who defines them reliably? Probably wildly incomplete, too. A merge proposal seems to have gone nowhere, and I can't see how this can be made to be valuable as-is as it is. Probably fails WP:DIRECTORY too... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate summary list, should be more closely linked to the appropriate detailed articles on the manufacturer or weapon, which will provide the references. If limited to those that have Wikipedia articles or sections of Wikipedia articles, how can it possibly be too large for Wikipedia. (And I think 1945 is a conventional cutoff point in military history--I wouldn't object, though, to also merging with earlier periods in a comprehensive list, though it would still be helpful to have one on historical periods) DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not indiscriminate, per DGG, and my arguments on similar weapons lists AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "modern" in the title referring to? The concept of a "modern weapon" is very subjective and qualifying weapons (or a line, as in the case of manufacturers) as being "modern" or not is going to involve a lot of conflicting opinions. I believe there have been a few AfDs regarding this term being used in other articles, could someone enlighten me as to how they turned out? However, if "modern" refers to the companies themselves, we have another issue as to what modern means and how the scope is applied. For example, Beretta is an active firearms company, still making and designing new products today. But it's also one of the oldest firearms manufacturers in the world... so does that mean it's modern? What if it's a new company making unmodern weapons? I think that if the scope is more clearly and narrowly defined, then we can easily keep the list. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for AfD, but over at CfD the use of "modern" has been pretty resoundingly nay-ed several times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my first year history lecturer was quite clear 'modern' meant after 1500. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good summary list. Appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 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 closing as moot. Article was redirected to ordination of women by User:Zachlipton, which strikes me as the Right Thing, and at any rate makes this discussion moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women preacher

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

BLATANT POV essay, soapboxing, etc....violates WP:NOT in many and various ways WuhWuzDat 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an essay. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advocacy and a variety of WP:NOTs. The statement that the KJV is the "most accurate" of translations is an indication of additional problems. Acroterion _(talk) 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tagged as copyvio of this page (and many others found in a Google search). Actually, I'm just going to redirect this to Ordination of women right now. Zachlipton (talk) 20:02, 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq

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

This is an unreferenced, extremely incomplete list, that has existed since 2004 and been in its current state, essentially changed and utterly unreferenced, since 2005. In addition, it is extremly American-centric; the only "Coalition" weapons listed belong to the United States...and furthermore, only those used as personal weapons by members of the United States Marine Corps! I can't see how this list has any encyclopedatic value. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. The article is completely unreferenced and highly incomplete. Even if these were overcome, I'm not sure what the value is to Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily enough referenceable by those who know the subject--most should already have refs in the appropriate more detailed articles on the weapons. Weapons used in a particular war is a very appropriate summary article for an encyclopedia. Who would be interest in the military aspects of a particular war who would not want to know that? Just the thing for a comprehensive encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the list was incomplete, let's make it more complete. Why delete? Biophys (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a category, I'd say "non-defining for the weapons listed". As it is, what does this list do, even complete, that mentioning the weapons in the article(s) on the war and occupation itself doesn't do? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2003 invasion of Iraq does not include the list of weapons used during the operation. Hence the list. Biophys (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I believe my point was missed. The weapons used should be worked into the prose of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not indiscriminate, per DGG, and my arguments on similar weapons lists AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Once you've removed from the nom's deletion arguments all of those that are fixable by editing, all you're left with is "I don't get it." Listing weapons by the wars in which they are used is a pretty standard and obvious way to classify weapons, and to provide info on the materiel used in a conflict. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced, incomplete to the point of being POV about whom is listed and whom is not, insignificant intersection, and redundant to many other lists (such as List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces and List of crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces). The weapons used by the insurgency is going to be highly problematic, because nearly everything under the sun was used (I've actually handled a flintlock rifle captured from a weapons cache in Fallujah), and there was virtually no uniformity to which groups favored what models (aside from the fact that the AK-47 and its variants/derivatives were virtually everywhere) that attempoting to list them all would be unfeasabile and smack of OR and SYNTH. And the fact that the article hasn't been improved in years goes to prove that cleanup is not likely to occur to bring it up to any sort of standard, no matter how meager. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bahamut0013. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Bahmaut. This list would also get extensive as U.S. troops also used AK-47/Ms and PKs along with other U.S. weapons such as the M79. During my time in country I saw insurgents use everything from shotguns to hunting rifles to whatever they could find. The AK-47/M variants also varied greatly from the manufacturing country. My experience would be OR; hard to verify. Also, insurgents used 82 not 81mm mortars.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal Weapon

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

Article was created primarily to showcase a weapon that appears to have been a hoax; in its current, de-hoaxed form, it's a single, 17-word sentence that hasn't been touched, aside from cleanup and bots, since 2007, with a single "reference" that speculates that the type of weapon might be feasible. A Google search appears to turn up only the original New Scientist article and articles either mirroring or referencing the Wikipedia article; there's no reason this sub-stub couldn't be simply included as a single line in an article about future weapons concepts and/or artillery, if it's even notable enough for that. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons of nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete has nothing to do with the steam machine gun that MythBusters built, that is a centrifugal weapon; doesn't even mention any weapons at all. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needless to say, this article needs development. Whether or not the weapon exists is unknown to the public at this time. This article does have numerous references online regarding it, some of them approaching credible. The article is not an orphan [30] and needs to be categorized.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: theoretical item without any notability. Thin referencing doesn't cover the supposition, and without any real scientific or military acceptance, it seems to just be OR and/or CRYSTAL. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No prejudice to recreation if actually got beyond a concept at some future point. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N due to a lack of "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 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 speedy delete, blatant advertising and likely copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melco Personalization Solutions

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

Highly promotional, very few ghits and no gnews for "Melco Personalization Solutions" indicates a lack of notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy as db-inc, db-romo i.e. no claim of signifiance and/or simple promotion. EEng (talk) 19:50, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Angastiniotis

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

No independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some searching, and it looks like most of the info on Angastiniotis is self-published. I can't find enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. Angryapathy (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto above.LedRush (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a few hits on GNews, so he's not totally unknown (not enough for substantial coverage though), but even if someone does manage to show notability, Wikipedia articles are not soapboxes for the subjects of the articles to record their views. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange pastiche of an article that fails to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iff the stuff in the article can be sourced reliably, then he squeaks past minimum notability criteria - and even then, the article is still crammed full of copyvio. Delete unless it can be salvaged, with no prejudice against subsequent recreation if it can be done properly. DS (talk) 23:50, 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 speedy delete, A7 and G11, no showing of minimal importance, and promotional. (Article was about a business that makes glitter. Can't forget the Classic Sweat Pose!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glitterex

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

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss this company, and fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company clearly exists, but I see no evidence that it is notable. No news source discusses the company, and I can't find any RS that mentions it.LedRush (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Tagged for speedy as db-inc, db-promo i.e. no claim of signficance and/or blatant promotion. EEng (talk) 19:52, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Pool

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

Public Pools are usually non-notable, no indication why this pool is notable, merge to school district or Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an article about a pool. I could not find more than a passing mention of this pool, even in borderline non-reliable sources. The article itself doesn't even make a prima facie claim that the pool is notable.LedRush (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might even be a speedy under G11, as it's an advertisement with everything but the price-- birthday parties, swimming lessons, etc. No merge, no redirect (at first, the title looks like it's the name of a person, and I'm sure there's someone named Lloyd Poole out there)-- at best, a mention and a link in the district article will suffice. Mandsford 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy as requested JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Holiday

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

Non-notable film, no notable people, yet to be released. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage for this film. Only the film's star, Micahel Copon, seems to be relevent, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe once the film is actually finished it will receive some coverage in reliable sources (no, that doesn't include YouTube). Angryapathy (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. While even willing to grant the interview clips on youtube indicate it is beginning to get some "buzz", and that the mention last October by Leslie Holtzman of The Independent speaks toward its casting,[31] and that NME even shares a trailer,[32] there is still not enough coverage available for this one to merit an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has been significantly updated with additional media coverage and news links to the celebrities involved. There has been buzz about the film in the media this week as the creative team is at Sundance Film Festival, and especially about Michael Copon.[33] 12:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.229.148 (talk • contribs) ( commented originally signed by IP as "SuzieQHoliday"[34])

Really all you've provided is that Michael Copon is notable, which isn't what this debate is about. The links you have provided still do not constitute reliable sources. Angryapathy (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm confused by your response, Angryapathy. You don't consider Entertainment Tonight, the New York Daily News, USA Today, or The Independent to be reliable sources for a movie entry on wikipedia? 4:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzieQHoliday (talk • contribs)
- To SuzieQHoliday, Be sure to "sign with 4 "~~~~". There's only one "keep" per customer - even if not signed in when commenting[35], and please do not remove the links showing you were the one making the comments.[36] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, please understand that while your sources DO show the film is in production... that is really not the issue. What IS the issue is the depth and endurance of coverage. Please see WP:NFF. For an unreleased or incomplete film to even be considered for inclusion, the coverage has to be much greater than what is currently available. Heck, this one is not even listed yet on IMDB. I advise you request the article be userfied to you at User:SuzieQHoliday/workspace/Killer Holiday for continued work and improvement. I'd even be glad to advise on article format, style, and source suitability, in working toward its eventual return. But with all respects, this article is simply premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt. How do I request the article be userfied to me at that link? SuzieQHoliday (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)SuzieQHoliday[reply]
  - When this AFD is closed, simply make the request of the closer on his talk page... or drop me a note at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt and I will ask that it be done for you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In response, The New York Daily News and USA Today articles don't even mention the movie, and The Independant basically mentions the title of the movie. Again, proving the notability of Michael Copon isn't the same as proving the notability of the article topic. Angryapathy (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And having the author work on it in a sandbox will get it off of mainspace and allow editing skills to be better learned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vitale

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

Delete as advert. Works are self-published and not reliable sources. Editor is sockpuppet. See COI thread and sockpuppet investigation ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is indeed a case of WP:COI self-promotion. That in itself does not automatically prove the article subject is not notable. But he isn't. He's described as an "author", but all his books are published by own company, so that's out. What's left is his career as a motivational speaker. In this career, he appears to be reasonably successful but no more notable than millions of other persons are in their careers as accountants, executives, lawyers, or what have you. His profession is such that self-promotion is almost obligatory, and so he has a few writeups, and so passes WP:GNG I guess. But WP:GNG says that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article", and that would apply to Mr Vitale. Herostratus (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails as WP:AUTHOR and his manuscripts all fail WP:BK. All of the books are self-published through his own company. Also serious WP:AUTO and WP:COI and WP:SPA issues here. Qworty (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific sea salt

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

Delete as advert. Created by user evading block and soliciting for article writing...see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bockeee ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's not to love about an article whose first source is www.absoluteastronomy.com, for people who want some ads to go along with the Wikipedia text. ~~Still, I'm afraid that there's more to nominating an article for deletion than this, see WP:AFD for all the steps you have to go through.~~ Mandsford 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. When I first looked at it, I didn't see the deletion tags nor the nomination mention in the history. I apologize. Mandsford 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here that isn't already present at Sea salt. Not worth a redirect since this is an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Considering the socking and self-promotion isuues, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. An ad created by a sockpuppet created by a person who has been blocked, again, what's not to like. Maybe it will live on at absoluteastronomy.com forever. Mandsford 14:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. by clear consensus that this is a BLP1E situation JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Slater

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Everything covered about this individual belongs at the main page of his 1E, JetBlue flight attendant incident. Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - nothing has changed about this person that alters the consensus conclusion we came to those months ago - redirect to his one event - end of, salt on it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. This is about as BLP1E as it gets. ... when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event --Bejnar (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep. I wrote the article and did so for these reasons.

(1) The original deletion was about lack of sources for established notability. This has changed. The review of the year 2010 made by diverse sources is that Steven Slater was a notable person for the year 2010. If he had been ignored, he would have been as people suggested in the original deletion discussion transient news. But he was not ignored. Things have changed to tip him well over the threshold into notability.

(2) His fame has lasted more than a few weeks. He is still considered sufficiently notable in 2011 to be the subject of a comedy sketch and song in an off Broadway musical. In the world beyond Wikipedia a director thinks an audience will not only know who Steven Slater is but still be interested to have laughs and entertainment made about him. That is lasting nonnews type real world notability.

(3) He passed Time (magazine)'s end of the year radar for notability and so any reasonable threshold for Wikipedia. Note, Time was highlighting in this not the incident in which he was involved but Steven Slater the individual. It may be objected that he topped their lists for "fleeting celebrity" and "15 minutes of fame" but that is not so relevant as it might first appear since they do not concern the kind of temporariness that rules out Wikipedia notability.

(4) Time has picked him up as being notable for understanding 2010 and that includes those individuals in 2010 most notable for their fleeting celebrity and five minutes of fame—as it notes his becoming a " folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere " and " a folk hero among frustrated workers across the country". If you were asked to write a term paper about events in say 1970 you would want to know and perhaps write about the individual that Time considered to be the top person with fleeting celebrity and 15 minutes of fame for that year. Time changed the context of his notability to totally different one from that in August--one that is about what was important in 2010.--LittleHow (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Peeve: WP can't keep the article a lot. There's no such thing as keeping the article with prejudice. How strong your desire to keep the article is is irrelevant. Your arguments for keeping it are what's important. Padillah (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage and lasting impact. Marcus Qwertyus 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage and lasting impact. The guidelines don't require that the individual be worthwhile. They don't require the individual be important. They don't even require that the individual have the sense God gave a titmouse. Just that they are notable. As that is the ONLY criteria that need be adhered to, he qualifies. Padillah (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines require one to be notable for more than one thing, though. Still cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame is not sufficient to surpass 1E if its all just "hey, here's the JetBlue guy!" types of appearances or name-drops. Nothing of significance has happened since the last row of AfDs and DRVs. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Everything mentioned in Steven Slater#In the press is about the same one event, and the article still falls perfectly under WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources saying "person X is notable" doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia's purposes; and in any case, they're all saying he is notable for the same one event, in which circumstances both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E trump everything else. ninety:one 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the Time magazine's explanation of his notability it is not primarily about the event of the wikipedia incident article but that he became "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere" [37].

One curiosity, Time's judgment of fleeting celebrity can be badly wrong: for 2009 it put Susan Boyle as its number two fleeting celebrity.[38]

You're totally missing the point: Time do not say that he is notable for more than the one event, because he is not. There is room for the nonsense about him being "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere" at JetBlue flight attendant incident. It does not justify him having a seperate article. ninety:one 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, this is what Time actually does write. Time is specific in its words: Steven Slater is a "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere". The core point is that in Time's view Steven Slater is very notable (top number one on two lists), and notable for something that while linked to the incident, goes far beyond it -- his status as a folk hero.--LittleHow (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. I think that the most telling detail here is that almost all of those end of the year summaries of overrated stories are about the incident, rather than about Mr. Slater himself. The lack of any update on what happened to him after August clears up the doubts that existed before about whether he would prove to be notable. I would infer from the lack of book deals or reality show appearances that this man isn't seeking to be put under the microscope for the rest of his life, and if that's the case, then leave the guy alone. For those who aren't yet saying "Steven who?", I would bet that they do not recognize the name of Jennifer Wilbanks, who was quickly forgotten after the 2005 incident to which her name now redirects. Mandsford 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as swiftly as possible. The new information is trivial--note that even if we considered it a notable source, it specifically calls his celebrity "fleeting." Since there has been no substantial change to this article since the last AfD, it should be speedily returned to a redirect, just as if someone had recreated a fully deleted article with no new substantial information. Note that there is a very real concern for the individual, here--yes, Slater did something very public and very intentional, but we have no way of knowing if continuous reminder of this negative event is causing harm. WP:BLP1E is specifically made to allow people who are "famous" for events of this type to fade out of encyclopedic memory. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten days ago, he made a surprise cameo appearance during a performance of the musical review Newsical in the skit which lampoons him. He is well known and actively in 2011 milking his notability and so the idea of protecting him from notability does not apply The JetBlue Diva Is Back!--LittleHow (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have focused on the protection aspect. But the policy is clear, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The only way for Slater to have his own article is for him to become "high profile" and to be famous for "more than one event." The only thing that is different between the last deletion discussion and this one is that a notable news organization explicitly told us that Slater is a "fleeting celebrity". I would argue that the Time article actually reinforces the redirect decision, not overturn it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fleeting notability based on BLP1E. Restore in a year if subject has achieved recognition for more than the single event and its aftermath. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. A core pillar of Wikipedia is no original research i.e. as little input from editors with articles being instead created in regard to outside authoritative sources. This applies both to content, and wherever possible, notability. Time magazine is authoritative and has provided that external source and has specifically done so for Steven Slater as an individual. It has recognized this notability as separate to the aircraft incident in which he was involved since
- (1) it has given the aircraft incident a separate entry as a notable travel event, and
- (2) in its discussion of Steven Slater identifies how his notability goes beyond the mere physical events of that August day on that aircraft in regard to his being now a folk hero.

To discuss WP:BLP1E and redirects here when there is this external authoritative source (as well as many others) that identifies his notability as distinct ("folk hero") from the incident, I suggest, is to start to do a kind of original research in regard his status and its nature. Time Magazine has done the work of Wikipedia editors as an external source in deciding his notability and its nature as that of him as an individual.

If there is to be debate it is whether Time Magazine is sufficiently authoritative as an external source. In regard to Time calling his notability "fleeting" look at the company in which they put him top -- they are not big (apart from Susan Boyle, number 2 fleeting celebrity of 2009) but they mostly already have Wikipedia articles "fleeting celebrities 2010" and "15 minutes of fame 2010" and Fleeting celebrities in 2009).--LittleHow (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I believe you are confused--Time Magazine does not set our standards for notability or other inclusion standards. Simply because Time prints something does not guarantee that information should be anywhere in Wikipedia; it certainly doesn't guarantee that something should be an article. Your very second sentence ("This applies both to content, and wherever possible, notability") has no basis either in practice or in policy/guidelines. In any event, WP:BLP policy, including WP:BLP1E can (and I believe in this case does) override notability--that's the whole point of WP:BLP1E. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps other opinions are needed here. But I understand Wikipedia's core principles are about letting external sources do the work. Editing is merely transmission. Nothing is added so no point of view, no personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions, and instead always the use of verifiable authoritative sources. We merely take--using as much commonsense as we can--what is authoritative out there and turn it into encyclopedia articles. Time Magazine has made a very clear external statement in putting Steven Slater at the top of two of its end of 2010 lists that he is notable and that his notability is separate "folk hero" from the physical events of August. To ignore this is to add a personal opinion to the editing of Wikipedia. We can debate how far Time Magazine is authoritative here but not that sources normally considered authoritative (Time Magazine is not alone) are treating Steven Slater as notable and in a way (folk hero) that is separate to the physical incident in August. WP:BLP1E is about protecting individuals incidental to events from further undue publicity: this does not apply to Steven Slater as he is actively seeking publicity such as the cameo appearance he made ten days ago in off Broadway show containing a comedy routine and song about him.[39]--LittleHow (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BLP1E and lack of any unique information about the person in this article. We had both links in Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear and I just removed the link to Steven Slater so that readers will go to the more complete article instead. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is unique information in the Steven Slater article that is not in the incident one and this is key information as to why people reading Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear might what to know more about him.

that he is treated as a folk hero,

that he is the subject in skit and song of an off Broadway show Newsical

that he has been the subject of a dozen plus songs and a political ad

that he has notability widely explained as due to resonance of his situation with workers in a recession

This information about emotional reactions helps explain why he was selected to give a videotaped message to the Rally, while the incident article leaves that issue a bit of a mystery.

WP:BLP1E should not be used to advance the point of view that information about emotional reactions to an individual is inappropriate content in an encyclopedia article and that content should be limited to only physical event details. This seems to be the case here since confining discussion of Steven Slater to only the aircraft incident cuts out discussion about how people reacted to what he did (which is a core part of the article about him). If this viewpoint is what editors feel they should state they have a concern about the appropriateness of including details about emotional reactions to people particularly in regard to their notability. If this is a grounds of objection it can be discussed.--LittleHow (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call the media notability section? Add another paragraph to it if you like. It doesn't affect the WP:BLP1E criteria. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to Redirect - My god, I hate dealing with the same "one event" garbage every few months. There is no "widely expanded notability", this is just gussied-up lipstick on a pig. Folk heroes? Resonance with workers? Please... We're still at the same point; one person has 15 minutes of fame by getting toasted and quitting in a huff. Becoming the butt of some jokes and name-dropped in a few songs doesn't cut it. I see alot of calls redirects and such so far, though; I wish this logic had carried the day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer). Tarc (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good candidate for a second AfD, once the recentism has died away and the average person says "Ted who?" --Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have reference materials like Wikipedia. The "Ted whos?" from ancient times are never completely forgotten.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I am unconvinced by the notion that any notability exists here that is not related to the airplane incident. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. Mr Slater has no notability other than that incident, and there's nothing in this article that isn't in that one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. He is not notable independently of this incident, and since the incident is almost entirely about him, any worthwhile content from the Steven Slater article could easily be merged in.--Korruski^Talk 12:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are keeps, since they claim no necessity to get the name or its history out of article space; and this may well, like Kitty Genovese, be a case in which the person is overwhelmingly more recognizable than the description of the incident. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect votes are definitely not the same as keep votes. While a redirect doesn't delete article history, it does say that the target isn't notable enough for its own article. And as a psychologist, I find the comparison between a guy who got fed up with his job and quit in a huff and a woman who was brutally murdered over a long period of time with bystanders doing nothing, thus furthering study in the field on the concept of the bystander effect, to be invalid. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Recreation overrides prior consensus to focus on incident instead of person.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:23, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Vasilev

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

Recreation of an article deleted via PROD. The subject does not currently meet notability criteria in that he has not appeared in a top-tier league. Although he was signed by Levski Sofia, he has never played for them and is on loan to a B-Series team. From WP:NFOOTY "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable" Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is just a matter of a month before the season starts and he plays in A group.He is a talented goalkeeper owned by Levski sofia.n Vidima Rakovski he will play regularly, so this page should stay! --added by Gandev88 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "He will play someday" is certainly not a valid argument for inclusion, and falls into WP:CRYSTAL. An article can be created after he meets the notability criteria, not in anticipation of him one day meeting the requirements outlined at WP:NFOOTY. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the proliferation of stubs about football players with single references to a sport's database, the guideline should be strictly interpreted. Ponyo accurately stated the proviso about non-playing players, and we should follow it. --Bejnar (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails the general notability guideline and is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about an athlete who fails his sport's notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, and he fails WP:GNG, and is therefore not notable enough to merit an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hi,

He's played at two top clubs in Bulgaria. Youth when he did or not. This player is notable. He seems to be quite good at playing football. I beleive they are loaning him out like any other team would do to a young 20 year old that's not broken into the team yet-To get experience! In England Premier League clubs loan players out that haven't played a game for them yet. T o the Championship for example. Yes, I know thyat's a professional league but his parent club plays in a professional league. He still young-He will play for them soon. He's been on the subs bench a few times awell for them.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CRYSTAL. If he becomes notable in future, then it can be restored Spiderone 11:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom Spiderone 13:43, 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 redirect to Randy Barnett. NW (Talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Federalism

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

Vanity article, non-notable subject. Appears to be a summary of an article/proposal by a college professor on how he would like to see the US Constitution amended. None of the citations except one mention the "Bill of Federalism" itself. The official website for the bill^{[dead link]} has been a dead link since July 2010. Rillian (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is a tough one, but I'm leaning towards merge and redirect to Randy Barnett. Barnett himself is obviously notable (full professor, publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals, well-known in libertarian political circles, etc.), but the more difficult question is whether the proposal itself has standalone notability. He seems to have written about it in some high-profile media outlets - including this article in Forbes and this one in the Wall Street Journal - but I can't find much in the way of independent third-party coverage, other than the John Birch Society (hardly a reputable source) critiquing the proposal. The article cites various reported cases and law journal articles in explaining the constitutional background and purpose of Barnett's proposal, but none of these citations are about the proposal itself, and they therefore have no bearing on whether it is notable. On a related point, much of the current article is original research, and reads like the author's own reflection on American constitutional jurisprudence and the problems therewith.

In short, I'd say the project is notable enough to be mentioned in the article on Barnett, but it isn't (as far as I can tell) notable enough to merit a standalone article, or this amount of detail. However, I'll change to a keep if someone unearths some substantial coverage of the proposals, either in the media or in the peer-reviewed academic literature, which wasn't written by Barnett himself. Walton^One 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Walton about the redirect to Randy Barnett, but not the merge. Currently, although well done, this reads too much like a piece promoting the "Bill of Federalism". Providing a citation to a statement by Randy Barnett containing the text of the "Bill of Federalism" in the Randy Barnett article should suffice. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect makes sense to me. Barnett is notable and his ideas have gotten a lot of press, but until the amendments actually get introduced in Congress or something, they're just a professor's ideas. Coemgenus 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Merge and redirect seems to be the best solution to what is essentially a vanity article. ThatOtherMike (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The amendments have been introduced as bills in state legislatures. This is not just one law professor's proposal, but a set of proposals that have been widely discussed, critiqued, and expanded in the print media and blogosphere and among political activists and politicians. A Google search for "Bill of Federalism" in quotes yields 3,230 hits, including Forbes magazine, the Volokh Conspiracy, Tea Party sites, etc. The Repeal Amendment, which is the most widely discussed component of the proposals, has garnered over 79,000 hits on Google and has been publicly supported by prominent politicians, including the governor of Virginia,[40] and has passed at least one state house committee.[41]--Jsorens (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This doesn't need an article by itself, lack of notability. This is no more notable than me suggesting to my state congressman that there should be a state amendment, then making an article about it on Wikipedia. If, in fact, it has been "widely discussed" (as pointed out by an above poster), then such links should be provided in the article. As it stands, the only reference on the page which mentions it is an article written by Barnett himself. Squad51 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a rationale for improving the article rather than redirecting it, as I suppose the redirect will radically reduce the amount of content on the topic.--Jsorens (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "Bill of Federalism" gets about 3200 hits, not 79,000 (when I just checked it a moment ago - and some of these are about something else, a "federalism bill" from 2002 comes up). Secondly, I still wouldn't be that convinced of its notability. Because its gotten out of one state house committee and has support from a governor, doesn't make it notable enough to be an article separate from the person who started it. Keep in mind, it would take 3/4 of ALL 50 states for it to be part of the Constitution. At this point, it seems highly unlikely. Squad51 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for us to judge whether the amendment is likely to be enacted? If it is part of public debate, shouldn't it be included here on that ground alone?--Jsorens (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are debated by the public. That doesn't make them notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article. However, none of the responders to this discussion are saying the topic should disappear, rather it should be included in Barnett's article. Rillian (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per Jsorens' remarks above, it's pretty clear that the Repeal Amendment is notable in itself. (That page currently redirects to List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution.) It seems to be a pretty widespread Tea Party idea which has been adopted by some state and federal politicians. But I'm not sure that that makes the rest of Barnett's "Bill of Federalism" notable, since the rest of it doesn't seem to have garnered similar attention (most of the press coverage of the Repeal Amendment doesn't mention it). So... perhaps create a substantive article to replace the redirect at Repeal Amendment, and add some of the relevant sourced material there? Walton^One 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Randy Barnett. Seems notable enough for inclusion there, but not yet notable enough for a spinout article. Edward321 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Randy Barnett for reason stated by Edward321. Copritch (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business place

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

Some sort of essay/how-to article and/or WP:NEO — Timneu22 · talk 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For future reference, you could have used WP:PROD for this, as it's a pretty obvious case: no sources, no explanation, no evidence of notability, reads like something copied out-of-context from a textbook. I would say speedy delete, but it doesn't quite fit any of the criteria, though it comes close to criterion A1 (no context). Walton^One 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very difficult to maintain a bunch of PRODs, as I see hundreds of pages per hour. PROD gets removed and the article just falls by the wayside. Parts of this are written in an essay style, and I've begged WT:CSD for an essay reason, but they refuse. — Timneu22 · talk 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In browsing usage in Google scholar, the term "business place" seems more to be used for brick and mortar facilities than for online ones. I found no specific usage as a "term of art" above and beyond its plain meaning, whether applied to a physical or virtual "place". --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 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 Speedily deleted by Doc James as copyright violation. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad

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

This was prodded and deleted a few months ago, so I'm now taking it to AfD. I'm basing my call for deletion on two reasons:

The article is entirely unreferenced.
Our notability standards for university departments, which this is, are fairly high, given the relatively low number of articles we have on them. The Vasile Goldiş West University of Arad itself is notable (wretched though that article too may be), and actual separate medical universities in Romania, like the Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy or the Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy are also notable, but there's no reason to see this particular department as such. After all, in the latest rankings of Romanian medical universities and faculties, Arad did not even show up. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Faculties or schools of medicine or law or business are sufficiently notable independent of the parent university, and are not analogous to university departments. We have many such articles, indeed forthe major universities we have or are approaching comprehensive coverage, but very few on university departments. That's a separate matter. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyright violation per:

Greetings. I put in Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad for AfD, but only later did I realise that the whole thing is a copyvio, directly lifted from [42], [43], [44], [45] and [46]. Would it be possible for you to just delete it, given the copyright infringement the page represents? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ETV Network (India). JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETV Urdu

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

Seems to fail to be notable on it's own, largely unsalvageable opinion piece. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The authors/editors seem to want an article for each channel of the ETV Network.

Given the redundant nature of these articles, I would redirect all of these network channels to ETV Network (India). --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not all channels from the ETV group are notable on their own. These can be part of the parent ETV article. If and when there is enough separate material gets added to the parent article, they can be spun out into separate articles on their own.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sodabottle. ETV Kannada already redirects to ETV Network (India). —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRL vs. AFL 2011 TV Ratings

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

Pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Not an encyclopaedic topic, more suitable as an essay or on-going analysis. It seems unlikely that this will be demonstrably notable in its own right as a stand-alone topic and will continue to fail the WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO guidelines. Fæ (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply: It will be updated as figures come in from ratings sources and will be referenced thoroughly. This page will be used as a set of key figures in the lead up to the 2 TV deals being negotiated in the next 6-12months for Australia's two biggest sports. It is not disimilar to any listings of crowd figures or player indiscretions. I will personally keep it up to date and ensure it is of a high standard, it is just a lot of work in one go which is why I am currently preparing it for the upcoming seasons (starting in a few weeks) so that figues will just need to be added. Wiki allows me to collect all the data much like an exel sheet but also allows referencing to add credibility and weight to the discussion of a topic which dominates the media and discussions between fans of both codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am nowhere near finished so please allow me time to put the effort in that is needed to get this page up to a high standard. You will see it will be a contributive source of information.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 24 January 2011

Comment Though I hate to discourage a new contributor, and although I recognize that writers of sports articles are allowed to get away with things that other writers aren't-- things like 2010 Atlanta Braves season#Game log pretty well shows that WP:NOT#STATS isn't meant to be taken seriously-- I think that you're going to face the problem that comes with comparing X and Y. That type of article usually isn't kept, the reason being that you can compare anything to anything. In this case, it's comparing the popularity on TV of rugby league to Australian rules football on days where matches are being broadcast at the same time, which is like comparing (in the U.S.), NBA basketball to NHL hockey, or for that matter, NBA basketball vs. NCAA basketball, or NFL football to NCAA anything. To me, it's not much different than the pages where a Braves fan keeps track of the season as it's going on. You might want to keep track of things on your own user page, however. Mandsford 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply: But that is exactly the point... If 2 games are on at the same time then the fan much choose which game to watch, and there in lies the reason for this. It is a gauge of popularity, support and overall fan-base. I am using the same data as the TV networks and applying them to a stand alone wiki page so the average fan can see EASILY see the numbers in one place (cause god knows it's hard to find an overall season review rather than weekly or just a few sets of numbers on the news post-season, without sources).

I can see where you are coming from about the different variables but this is not black and white, it is grey. I am posting the figures and will be adding the different variables in the intro as I have started to do. For instance FTA tv is available to 98% of OZ where PTV is used by 34%. The ratio of games for each code is different on each format but both are shown on each, which is why I have a PTV average/game and FTA average/game. Another things is the AFL is shown Nationally at decent hours, where the NRL is only shown in 2 states (plus New Zealand) before midnight. But the NRL still win the ratings... So it isn't like I am skewing the numbers to favour 1 side or the other. The AFL tend to win the 5 capital city figures where the NRL double the AFL on PTV and when regionals are counted beat the AFL overall.

Like i said this is the same data the TV networks will use to make part of their decision and is the closest you can get to comparison but it is a set of key figures for anyone to access much like a crowds comparison (where by your argument there are restaurants to go to instead of games so it isn't comparable...? the people who went to the game made the choice and that is gauge of popularity of the sport/games). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will refer to these 2 news articles showing comparisons and the overall yearly audience (not that they will use exactly my data but TV networks will want to know the TOTAL eyes on the box when the sport is being shown in the overall TV package they are buying).

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-obliterates-rival-codes-in-tv-war/story-e6frexnr-1225919884159
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-races-ahead-in-tv-viewers-stakes-20100930-15z9t.html

Both talk about comparisons of cumulative seasons audience and "head-to-head" figures. This is the data used in Australia to measure to success of a code in Australia.

Thank you for taking the time to see my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments Aaronbach1 puts forward are quite genuine. The sporting landscape in Australia is quite remarkable in the fact that there are multiple versions of football competing for audience interest. This is why there is currently a thorough list of Australian Football Code Crowds being updated on Wikipedia. As NRL & AFL are the only two sports in Australia that have free to air coverage of their domestic competitions, it makes perfect sense that their viewing figures be recorded. This is no different to the Annual Australian TV ratings pages that are on wikipedia. However as the sources for this page would come directly from the National ratings monitor, all numbers posted on this page would be 100% accurate and official (Mattdocbrown (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ratings information can be included in code/match specific pages. Reubot (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both Original research by synthesis and as a POV fork. There are recurring flame wars on Australian Rules and Rugby League forums about what sport is the most popular and this article is pretty clearly written by a participant in those wars. He gives the game away by calling the sport "AFL" instead of "Australian rules football" in the article, "AFL is the name of both the sport played and the main domestic competition" which is juicy flamebait. The creator of the article is also a contributor to List of Australian rules football incidents, an article that appears to have no purpose than baiting Australian rules football fans. The creating editor should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and be advised that they should focus on improving Rugby league articles rather than writing very WP:POINTy articles about other codes. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply: you know little about Australian Sport if you were unaware that earlier last year the AFL commission went on to state that "AFL" will take over from the name of the traditional "Australian Rules Football" tag... Just so you know all my figures would be taken from the OZtam and Astra ratings. The same official and legitimate figures used by Australia's television networks.

I suspect that is quite possibly news to the AFL commission but you are only throwing that line out as flamebait anyway, so it doesn't matter. I don't care enough about Australian Rules to take the bait. The fact that you are using someone else's rating figures does not stop this entire article being original research by synthesis. You are taking raw data published by others and using it in a way that creates a new piece of data (the comparison) that is original to yourself. That is not how this place works. I note that you haven't bothered to deny the overall point you are trying to push, however. Go and start a blog and push it there - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For the record, nearly everyone else find football code flame wars dead boring. It would help the rest of us if you stuck to League Unlimited and/or Big Footy rather than bring them to Wikipedia. Alternatively, instead of trying to prove a futile point, why don't you go and improve some of the existing Rugby league articles. The best try I ever saw was in the first game of the 1994 State of Origin series by Mark $2 Coyne. Why not try and improve that article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure how involved you are with the AFL commission but I do refer you to the AFL's official webpage - http://www.afl.com.au/development/playafl/tabid/10244/default.aspx - which has now changed to read 'Play AFL' instead of 'Play Australian Rules Football' - as part of the AFL's attempt to sell it in developing markets both in Australia and overseas where the 'AFL' brand is more well known than Aussie Rules. Now whilst purists like yourself may object to it for obvious reasons, if the governing body claims it surely that should be taken into account rather than 1 wiki user's opinion. However I must say I don't really believe your claim not to care enough about AFL - considering you've created quite a few AFL club pages yourself - so I'll take whatever you say with a grain of salt. As for Synthesis, I note that there are already Australian ratings and sporting wiki pages - such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Australian_football_code_crowds - that have been running for more than 5 years that are also measuring comparative football audience sizes - and in fact have far fewer direct official resources than this article would. My only suggestion would be that this article encompass all four codes - however - if you really understand the nature of ratings data available, you will know that during summer that half the A-league games are cut off the pay-tv ratings list by cricket and that in winter AFL & NRL knock Super 15 off likewise so getting that complete info for Soccer & Union is near impossible. Only AFL & NRL rate highly enough for every game of the season to make the official ratings lists from Astra, Oztam and Regional Tam. If the information for both codes comes directly from the same ratings monitor, logically the only people who would label it 'synthesis' are those who dislike what the ratings monitor has recorded.(Mattdocbrown (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Mattingn you said "You are taking raw data published by others and using it in a way that creates a new piece of data (the comparison) that is original to yourself." If this is the reason for deletion I will be happy to abide by this but may you please tell me the difference between comparing TV ratings and Crowds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures This page takes RAW DATA PUBLISHED BY OTHERS, and MAKES A NEW PIECE OF DATA (THE COMPARISON) this is original to the editor. Comparing worldwide sports is a far less relevant comparison in my opinion (but it should also have it's place on wiki) as it doesn't account for ticket costs across sports, sporting culture, stadia capacity etc. My comparison is within Australia between the choices of the average Australian in the same sporting environment I differentiate between what is available to 98% of the population and what is available to 34% of the population. I have no issue if this page has truely breached Wiki's standards. What I do have a problem with is the reason given is overlooked on a variety of other long term pages... Thank you, I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbach1 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 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. Nomination Withdrawn -- Lear's Fool 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Junior Kurariki

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

The subject of this article has received media coverage solely because he was 12 years old at the time he committed a crime. A Google News search returns no sources that indicate lasting notability (apart from parole violations), and nothing to satisfy the notability requirement for perpetrators of crimes. -- Lear's Fool 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn -- Lear's Fool 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 13:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 13:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's New Zealand's youngest-ever convicted killer then he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as youngest killer.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking at the press coverage, he also appears to be a yard-stick against which other young killers are being measured, which sounds to me close to the definition of notorious. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His recent offenses have been relatively minor, however, the fact that the media chooses to report on them goes to show that his involvement in the initial crime was notable. In other words, the media typically does not report trivial crimes on non-notable individuals. This meets WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. Location (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty notable. The Choy case was very high profile. Youngest killer is notable per WP:CRIMINAL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:27, 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 No prejudice to recreating the article or addition of information to the articles Kingdom of Strathclyde or Selgovae provided that it can be attributed to a reliable, verifiable source. Mandsford 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selcovia

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

The article seems to be based on assertions at this site, which by consensus is not a reliable site. No independent citations are provided, and the information in the article is highly dubious at best. Other editors have searched for "Selcovia" on Harvard's library system's historical journal abstracts and a few other databases and come up with nothing. It may be a hoax - if not, it is non-notable and/or WP:FRINGE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple attempts to find reliable sources to verify this article have drawn a blank. If not a hoax, it is at the least deeply non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's noticeable that there is nothing in Scholar. The sources that I can find all use much the same language, suggesting a common origin, and even they say only that one Senyllt: "appears to have become king of the region around Selkirkshire where the people were known as the Selgovae. Although the name of his kingdom is unknown, for identification purposes, the Latin 'Selcovia,' would seem appropriate." A name made up one day because it "would seem appropriate" is not a good enough foundation for a Wikipedia article. Per WP:NEO we would need evidence that it was a widely accepted term. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is based on this webpage. However the problem is that this is a postulated name for the kingdom, which appears to have been a part of the kingdom of Strathclyde. The information on the website is sufficiently precise for me to believe that this is not a hoax. The Welsh practised partible inheritance, where the land and even kingdoms were divided between brothers, so that the claim that this happened in Strathclyde, another Celtic kingdom, is not incredible. This is a remote period in the Dark Ages, where the sources are very thin indeed, and the ultimate source is probably a Welsh genealogy. We have an article on the Selgovae (which refers to the people apparently ruled), but largely at an earlier period. The website cited appears to give three generations of kings, but it would be better to provide individual biographies for them and only include a list of kings in the article. We certainly cannot keep the article with its present name (which is a reconstruction. The book cited looks as if it is from a publisher specialising in Arthurian legends, and is probably not an ideal source either. If the only information is in genealogies, it will be better to cite a published edition of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some one can identify a better source, I am willing to do the merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be happy without much better sourcing - I can find no kind of confirmation in Scholar, suggesting that serious historians have not documented this. "Arthurian legends" are easy to make up; this site has a vast list of supposed post-Roman royalty, for which I simply do not believe there are reliable sources, and even this site uses a lot of "would appear to have been", "It seems likely that... " and "They apparently settled... " There really isn't a solid enough foundation for an article. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with this particular case of the so-called kings of 'Selcovia', but I am with similar work, scholarly and otherwise, on these pedigrees as they relate to early Strathclyde, Gododdin, and other neighbors to this supposed Selcovia. The surviving pedigrees are just names, usually devoid of context (not even 'kingdom' or tribe) except for their relative chronology (e.g. two contemporary leaders who were allies are shown in the same generation of descent from some heroic mythical common ancestor such as King Coel - all of the pedigrees are socio-political constructs, not authentic ancestry) and rare informative nicknames (one individual has the nickname 'Eidin' suggesting that he is being credited with the foundation of what would become Edinburgh) or eponymous ancestors (usually uninterpretable with regard to the historical Roman-era tribes). Separately, there are semi-legendary accounts of battles in which named leaders participated. Based on the arrangements of the pedigrees, and the locations and apparent alliances in battles, both scholars and Arthurian fringe authors have made guesses as to which of the tribal warbands or 'kingdoms' the individuals led. I doubt the identifications of these 'kings' with the Selgovae has passed scholarly rigor. In fact, there appears debate as to whether the Selgovae even existed at this time - a quick Google Books search turns up Alf Smyth in Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80-1000 [p. 20] writing "The survival of the Selgovae and Novantae into the Dark Ages may be in doubt, . . . ", while a history of Dunbar Park briefly states, "Of the four tribes recorded by Roman writers in Southern Scotland, the Votadini, Novantae, Damnonii and Selgovae, the first three appear to have retained their tribal identities into the post-Roman period as the Gododdin and the kingdoms of Rheged and Strathclyde", suggesting by omission that the Selgovae didn't (these two differ on the Novantae, but the ___location and cultural affinity of Rheged is a bit of a mystery). Unless a scholarly reference turns up, an attempted merge risks tainting the Selgovae article with what appears to be fringe guesswork. Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This particular string of letters has 83 Google hits, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Utterly fails WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 2 February 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 - closing the debate early as an apparent WP:HOAX. Walton^One 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob R Kon

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

Insufficent coverage to verify content of article, let alone establish notability. Google and Google News return no results matching this individual, and the source cited below appears not to exist in the newspaper's own archives. I've performed a Factiva search, which returned no results. Proposed deletion was contested. -- Lear's Fool 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Based on the available evidence, this is a hoax. Outside this article, I can find nothing on Jacob R. Kon (or Kohn), and no evidence for a Rabbi Harriet Wallace in Des Moines or elsewhere. Nor can I find evidence for the appointment in 2004 of an Exilarch, and nor for the existence of this position beyond the 12th century. The one reference fails to load. And finally, the presence of the wording "He is said to live in Crown Heights, Brooklyn ,though that is based on hearsay and might not be reliable." suggests hoax to me. Many of the hoax articles I have encountered have contained a woolly statement of this sort - "this legend is little known", "few know about", "no-one outside the society" and so on. I am, as always, willing to change my view if someone comes up with something convincing. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this obvious violation of WP:HOAX and WP:NONSENSE. There is no current "Exilarch" and even if there was one, which there hasn't been for over a thousand years, this guy would not be it. IZAK (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant violation of WP:HOAX and WP:NONSENSE. Note: no one reference is running also this one. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Nahum

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

Seemingly non-noteworthy scientist. Random Time 13:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There does seem to be mention and discussion of Dr. Gerard G. Nahum in reliable literature. He graduated from Stanford with his MD in 1984, after a B.S. in Chemistry and Engineering from Yale in 1978. From 1998-2004 he was an associate clinical professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Duke University School of Medicine. He now works for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals in Wayne, N.J., where he is head of their "Global Clinical Development for Women's Healthcare" initiative in the U.S. (See Bio.) Regarding the literature, see, for example:

These details aside, an example of the intricacies involved, conceptually wise in terms of pure hard science and equations, when even attempting to quantify the theory of the soul, or rather good or bad moral energy inherent in a person, in terms of modern science, is captured well in the 2005 review of American chemical engineer and physician Gerry Nahum’s 1978 “A Proposal for Testing the Energetics of Consciousness and its Physical Foundation”, in Mary Roach's popular book Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife, in which he proposed to experimentally weight the departing soul thermodynamically at the point of death of people in laboratory using electromagnetic sensors based on a type of negative entropy theory and the mass-energy equivalence relation. --from Sadi-Carnot (2010) "Thermodynamics of Hell" Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics (a wiki)

I would urge editors to look at the information available on Dr. Nahum, and base their decision to keep or not on the guidelines, particularly academics criteria 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. as well as the general notability criteria regarding adequate reliable, independent sources on the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not reach notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is a bit in the Roach book, an interview or two with Roach talking about her book, this not entirely inspiring book that mentions Roach's mention of Nahum ... and nothing that really kicks him over the GNG bar. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. And in this case the "one thing" is really only the mention of him in Roach's book. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have attempted to measure the weight of this article and the result is a lack of notability. Qworty (talk) 08:58, 31 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. with the specific outcome of moving Annapolis High School (Dearborn Heights MI) to Annapolis High School (Michigan) as this is the preferred title. —SpacemanSpiff 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annapolis High School (Dearborn Heights MI)

(formerly "Annapolis High School Dearborn Heights")

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

Annapolis High School (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles that duplicate the existing Annapolis High School with no substantial content to distinguish themselves from it. (Note: A10 criteria does not apply since these were not recent creations.) :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to preserve additional title. At the same time Annapolis High School should be turned into a disambiguation. tedder (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as per Tedder. Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - What am I missing here? Why would we redirect an article of a high school in Michigan to one in Maryland? Just because they have the same name? Long standing convention that all secondary schools are notable. I would advocate however redirecting one of the Dearborn Heights articles into the other as they're the same topic.--Oakshade (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC) redirect Annapolis High School Dearborn Heights to Annapolis High School (Michigan) and move Annapolis High School to Annapolis High School (Maryland), and dab Annapolis High School per Tedder's clarification below.--Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dearborn Heights should be redirected to Annapolis High School (Michigan), Annapolis High School should move to Annapolis High School (Maryland), and Annapolis High School should be a dab to the two of them. This doesn't even need discussion except for naming standards. I think the comment about merging is because the non-dabbed page was copy/pasted to swap who "owns" the non-dabbed article. tedder (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No reliable sources. Five Years 13:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect what to what?--Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles have significant edit histories, so I brought them to this discussion to see which article needs be redirected to which one. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 02:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the title to Annapolis High School (Dearborn Heights MI)... WP:OUTCOMES has been that articles about high schools are usually kept, and that a stub is usually acceptable. Reliable sources verify that it exists and that we're not being tricked [47], [48]. The other article should be merged with this one. Mandsford 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: High school articles are de facto notable, I will add additional sources. (ETA: of course there should only be one article on the high school; we don't need afd for that; close and cleanup!)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:54, 1 February 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 "keep" commenters have failed to effectively counter the arguments of either the nomination (regardless of the bad or good faith behind it) or the "delete" commenters. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs work like so. The nominator turns up with a reason for deletion. "delete" commentators turn up and either include their own reasons, or agree with his. "keep" commentators turn up and either fix the issues that the first two groups have raised, or, if they feel the issues are irrelevant (or simply don't exist), argue this out. In either case, the onus is on the "keep" side to rebut deletion arguments or prove them false due to the method of opening the debate with a nomination for deletion. User:Justfred opens up with critiquing the nominator's motives rather than his argument, ending with "notability guideline (WP:N appears satisfied" without giving any evidence to that effect. FuturePrefect makes a similar argument, also weighing in with the idea that Burning Man's overarching notability gives subsidiary articles notability. BabbaQ provides even less, simply saying that the nominator's claims are unfounded.

The awkward element, of course, is that at least one of the delete comments (User:Abductive) is similarly useless - arguably two. Abductive simply leaves a vote, and AfD is not a vote. Because of that, I would ask everyone involved (with the exception of Alzarian16, who actually provided a decent argument) to bear in mind in the future that their comments will only be taken into account if they're proper, policy-citing, logically argued comments. Admins do not care about the heat or emotion behind your edits here. That does not influence our decisions. What does influence our decisions is the strength behind the edits. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Ranger

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

Subject does not even remotely approach notability guidelines; Vain, self-aggrandizing and a waste of Wikipedia resources. zippogeek (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As expressed on the talk page, complainant zippogeek appears to have personal issues with the subject. It is otherwise a worthwhile article. notability guideline (WP:N appears satisfied.--Justfred (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons for this AfD are unfounded. The complaints mentioned by zippogeek (talk) do not warrant deletion and no one, including Zippogeek, has made an effort (article edits or talk page discussion) to improve the article by fixing the alleged problems (WP:N & WP:NPV). Given the time stamp of this AfD, Zippogeek's notice of deletion talk page, and the negative words he shared, I believe this AfD is not taken seriously, and we're working with an internet troll. As Justfred (talk) mentioned, I also believe that WP:N is satisfied, WP:DEL is not satisfied, and Burning man's sustained notability weigh's in favor for Black Rock Ranger. -- FuturePrefect (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dont see the reason for putting this up for an Afd at all. The reasons for this AfD are non-existing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As an uninvolved editor just passing by, I agree that the nominator's violent comment on the talk page calls his motives into some question. However, the article is unreferenced, and a Google search reveals a lack of hits that are not to the Burning Man page and other wikis. Not sure we really need an unreferenced article on the security team for an annual event and suggest we think about a merge into Burning Man. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of this group is questionable, but this does appear to be a bad-faith nomination. I think I'll tell the nominator on his/her talk page that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid criterion for deletion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be a verbatim copy of the burning man's site on the black rock rangers. No matter how notable the subject may or may not be, this article can't be kept as it is. -- Mecanismo | Talk
Delete. Basically a steward at a festival. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the bad faith nomination, this would actually appear to fail WP:GNG. The only reliable independent coverage I could find was a few one-sentence mentions in news reports and books. Add in the possible copyright problems mentioned by Mecanismo and deletion looks like the right option. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Burning Man. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camino (diffusion MRI toolkit)

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

This is an advertisement for the Camino software. There is no indication of notability and a clear conflict of interest going by the username Caminoucl of the article creator. The article also duplicates content on http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/medic/camino/ . I originally added a prod notice to this page but was removed by an ip with the reason "Camino is a free software developed by UCL researchers.It's not very easy to find docs about it,so I concern that a wiki would be useful for students" This only further demonstrates the notability and advertising concerns. Polyamorph (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software with lack of ghits except to company site and articles written by developers. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Brook City Council

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

Does not meet Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Town of 20,000 - -not appropriate for a separate article; already mentioned in the article for the town, and not a helpful redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique Cunha

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned above. Hasn't won a title KnowIG (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria for tennis players. Junior player, who hasn't won a Grand Slam and wasn't in the top 3 of the rankings. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaohsiung metropolitan area

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

This article (as well as the six other related ones to be listed below) was about an official statistical area of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The definitions have since been abolished,[49] and there is no reason to believe that the area will remain statistically or otherwise significant as an entity, since they were artificial definitions to start with. (The only possible exception relates to the Taipei-Keelung area, which I admit is a bit more fleshed out, but the information in whose article has been adequately dealt with in Taipei, New Taipei, and Keelung anyway.) Delete all (mild delete as to Taipei-Keelung) Nlu (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion:

Taipei–Keelung metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taichung–Changhua metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taoyuan–Zhongli metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tainan metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hsinchu metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chiayi metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related template proposed for deletion (separately, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 21):

{{Taiwan metropolitan areas}}
Keep - I see no reason why these are different than Los Angeles metropolitan area, New York metropolitan area and London commuter belt. Just because they are no longer official government designations, as those examples aren't, it doesn't mean they are not practical and common ones for business, commerce, real estate, transportation and many other uses.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the case of Los Angeles and New York, there are official definitions. (Los Angeles/Orange Counties, and 23 counties of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, respectively.) I don't know enough about the United Kingdom situation to comment there. The reason why I think that these articles can be deleted and should be is that they are obsolete without official governmental sanction — without governmental sanction, in effect, it becomes original research as to whether, for example, Jinshan District, New Taipei is a part of the Taipei metropolitan area, when there will be some who argue that it is and some who argue it isn't, with neither side having reliable sources supporting them. In particular, the prior-to-Kaohsiung-City/County-merger Kaohsiung metropolitan area artificially chose 10 cities/townships of Kaohsiung County to consider as part of the Kaohsiung metropolitan area. Well, Kaohsiung's influence doesn't just die at the border of those 10 cities/townships (which are now districts of the merged Kaohsiung City). With governmental definitions, at least there is one reliable source to pinpoint where the metropolitan area ends and where the non-metropolitan area starts; with the government decertifying these definitions, there is no objective way to determine where the metropolitan area ends, or whether, for example, Tainan and Kaohsiung should be considered a single metropolitan area. For another example, previously, I felt it was rather arbitrary to consider Yingge part of the Taoyuan-Jhongli metropolitan area rather than Taipei, but at least there was an official governmental position. Now it would be completely arbitrary to do so. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lacking official status doesn't necessarily warrant deletion or irrelevance. For example, Greater Tokyo Area has many definitions (ranging from government-specified, former city limits, labor markets, radial distance, etc.). I think a note could be added to inform readers that the government no longer provides statistics on the areas (like what has been done in Chinese wiki), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course, I do understand where you're coming from, but saying a metropolitan area is no longer significant doesn't quite make sense. Definite keep for Taipei–Keelung, by the way. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NTEMP. Just because they are no longer official designations does not mean that we eliminate the articles. If they historically existed, and the articles are supported with sources, there is no cause to delete them. Doing so would be the same as deleting all of our biographies after the deaths of the people they are about. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the difference there is that the persons actually existed, actually did things, and actually were notable (otherwise, they should get deleted, whether living or not). These "metropolitan areas" are artificial constructs that only existed on paper and had no significance legally or otherwise independent from their governmental definitions. --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Confederate States of America no longer exists, but we have an article on it. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep actually, because the deletion nomination is on a false premise, that things that have been superseded are not appropriate topics. We're an encyclopedia , not just a list of current political subdivisions. All organized communities are geographic or political areas that ever existed are appropriate topics, just as are the ones in the present. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that response is based on the false premise that these were "geographic or political areas." They were not; there was never any actual governmental organizations (a joint powers board, a liaison committee, a joint planning commission, &c.) that existed over these areas, nor were they geographic in nature. Unlike, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area, which has a number of governmental agencies that, at least in theory, coordinated the actions of the city and county governments of the region, none of these on-paper metropolitan areas ever had anything of that nature. They existed on paper. They gained absolutely no traction administratively or popularly. They were abolished without anything having ever been done on those "metropolitan" levels. And I am disappointed that while I acknowledge there may be reasons to keep them, not even one of the responses so far has addressed what I've pointed out. --Nlu (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither are any of the US MSAs. There are no common organizations that cover the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Metropolitan Statistical Area, it is simply a government designation - an artificial construct. That doesn't make the existence and definition of the area any less notable. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Yes, obscure, but if Wikipedia can have a whole category of defunct states, we can do relatively obscure Republic of China paperwork V. Joe (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of user agents for mobile phones

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

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

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

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

This list should not be included in an encyclopedia nor does it have a real purpose. User agents are a way to recognize the web browser (in this case mobile web browser). They have all the same logical construction that is already explained in user agent. The lead and reliable sources are missing; the page is incomplete. This may not a deleting criteria, but I don't get it why wikipedia should included it. mabdul 11:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also the first remove of the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of user agent strings mabdul 00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was linked to this page via a Wordpress theme and I found the information on it to be useful and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.177.52 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user agents changes with every update of the browser or an update of the underlying operating system... The list should much more longer. What does this shortened list better than your server logs? mabdul 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very usefull, please keep it up to date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.44.10 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See below: wp is not a howto mabdul 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was usefull to me, although I needed http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useragent to understand what I saw. Maybe use the provided link as a parent article, and add a brief explanation to the differences if any for mobile user agents. Coen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.160.157 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: already explained in user agent; marked in the lead as main article. mabdul 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a useful resource and should not be deleted. Developers need to be able to easily locate a comprehensive list of mobile user agents. It has no less purpose than the list of music genera that fall within Industrial Music and no one is arguing about that. Perhaps the page could be restructured into a table that includes source information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.149.195 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a howto. Search with google and you will find enough user agent collectors. mabdul 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating how web pages respond to different devices, I often need to have my desktop browser "spoof" the user agent string of a variety of devices.

A comprehensive list does not seem to exist elsewhere, nor does Google provide useful information other than this article. Other pages returned in a search for "mobile device user agent strings" have promising titles, but little to no useful information.

As such, this is a valuable resource with no other readily available replacement. --TGIF (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: take this site: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/mobile_ids.html on the right side in the navigation menu are more links. mabdul 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a trivial intersection. While a List of User agents may be appropriate, I can find no reliable sources dealing directly with the subject of this list. The fact that the list itself shows a mismatched main article template is also an indicator. This is a bit of a how-to guide for identifying mobile browsers, and does not seem to be an independently notable topic. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSC/J&L Industrial Supply

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

No actual claim to notability, and no secondary sources. I have looked for sources without finding anything. bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Epstein

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

I don't see that notability is firmly established here. Even if the assault incident is included, that wouldn't establish notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure I the interests of transparency, I removed this material hours prior to this nomination. It is verifiable he was convicted for assault and the change originally included a "hate crime" element. I expected the material to be replaced but with more attention to the sources. I don't think it effects notability, but those opining here should be aware of it in case they are of the opinion that it does.--Scott Mac 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do replace that material "with more attention to the sources". Will Beback talk 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's one of many right-wingers that the SPLC doesn't like (and probably with good cause) but I can't see how he's notable.--Scott Mac 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaving the assault charges out of the equation, it looks like his major claim to fame is being co-founder of the Robert Taft Club, an organization not notable enough to have its own article (it redirects to Epstein). Accordingly, I'm not seeing notability. Even adding the assault charge into the equation, I don't think that clears the hurdle of notability for him. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable enough. ScienceApe (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is claimed to be the author of articles in several national magazines and other publications. If true (I have no idea), wouldn't that make him notable? Kestenbaum (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, being the author of articles would not make him notable, as those would be primary sources. Being the subject of articles might make him notable, as those would be secondary sources. Qworty (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by your reply. To be a published writer is a "primary source"? Surely many writers are notable. Please elucidate. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:00, 31 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marli Buck

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

Delete. This article is written very informally, contains zero sources, has some serious NPOV issues, and has no evidence of notability (a google search for 'Marli Buck' simply returns the Wikipedia page). --Ashershow1_talk 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as written admits she just missed being notable, and there are a lack of ghits to third party sources to counter this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has all the markings of a spam/vanity article. Not only the article itself claims that the artist is irrelevant but also once we check the article history we see that a considerable number of edits comes from User:Marliharwood -- Mecanismo | Talk

It also looks as though User:Marliharwood vandalized the article since it was nominated for deletion. Maybe someone with rollback rights could correct it? --Ashershow1_talk 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I long ago became disaffected with the inclusionist approach of Wikipedia when it came to musicians but can't see why this is an exception to the many minor musicians with articles. It is badly written but that is not a reason for deletion. It doesn't help that the artist in question has written much of it or that the artist's real name and performer name appear to be different. The notability is based on the artist having the current BBC Radio 2 single of the week http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/music/playlist/next-week/ , here's an article about it http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2011/01/24/unsigned-artist-marli-harwood-made-radio-2-single-of-the-week-after-giving-up-music/ (I might have forgotten how to use wiki mark-up correctly) MLA (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Marli Harwood the same person as Marli Buck? In any case, even if we can somehow establish notability, the article has so many problems (i.e. NPOV, no sources, informally written), that it would have to be completely overhauled in order to be of any encyclopedic benefit. Not sure it's worth keeping. --Ashershow1_talk 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the same person. I think the article might be better as Marli Harwood rather than Marli Buck. I had a quick read of the music notability guidelines and couldn't quite work out what "placed" means for a national talent show competition - the BBC's Fame Academy qualifies as such and Marli was on screen for 5 weeks when she was still known as Buck (which is probably her maiden name as she married a Harwood) MLA (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should at least be renamed 'Marli Harwood,' but I disagree that it should be kept as an article. Being part of a talent competition does not make you notable. By those standards, every prankster on Britain's Got Talent would be on Wikipedia.--Ashershow1_talk 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that the standards around here are too lax for inclusion when it comes to entertainers but a run on a talent show and a nationally-syndicated record of the week (both the show and the radio station are the BBC) are points made under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. When the record is released in a couple weeks, there's a reasonable chance this artist also adds a chart placement. Also I noticed that someone else seems to have started work on improving the quality of the article. MLA (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kampf

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ray Kampf

Ray Kampf (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)

Article has many problems including a possible Conflict of Interest from User:RayKampf and possible BLP problems but ultimately it comes down to a lack of notability, and the resulting lack of references. It says (without references) that he is a Professor at Cal Polytech, but there's no reason to think he passes the Prof test. Other major claim to notability seems to be that he wrote a Master's Thesis. Smallbones (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it doesn't look like there's a very strong claim to notability here; the sole reference in the article is a book review — and not even a review of his book, at that, but a review of somebody else's book which merely mentions the existence of Kampf's book once or twice. So, as always, because too many people still aren't too clear on this point it bears repeating that being able to demonstrate the existence of the topic is not the same thing as demonstrating its notability. And a quick Google search isn't exactly turning up better references, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable enough to merit an article. CoI/BLP and referencing issues might still be significant, even if it were. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, with issues of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Scalable Protection System

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Marcus Qwertyus 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 03:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a commercial body armor, this fails notability. There might be notability for the Army project that BAE wants to enter this product into, but not the prototype entry... and in any case, it would probably be better to note this project at Improved Outer Tactical Vest until this project gets into the testing phase. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 07:25, 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 keep. Whether this tribe exists and is recognized (or not) is not relevant to this Wikipedia deletion discussion. As noted by DGG and others, verifiable, secondary sources discuss this group, and those advocating for deletion have not advanced any argument consistent with deletion policy given the present sourcing. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Southern cherokee nation of kentucky

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

Delete. This page exists solely to support the claims of its fictitious eponymous entity. All claims for its existence are supported by nothing except "original research on the website of the "tribe". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:A lot of good work has gone into this article, by 76.121.154.140, since it was proposed for deletion on 21st December. It is very well researched and mostly well referenced. The Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky are recognised at State and local level, per citations, and qualify as encyclopedic.Mark^Dask 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the discussion I feel this group is not notable so I'm withdrawing my view to keep. Mark^Dask 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reversal - keep as per Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Drmies at bottom of page. Mark^Dask 20:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's far from well-researched. The connection to the historical groups mentioned and the current group are not established. The organization is state-recognized but they need to actually do something to merit notability. Clearly the author is involved in the organization, so it's creation is promotional and attempt to confer for validity on the group. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Question: You say the group is state-recognized. What exactly are they recognized as? Indian tribe? Charity? Club? Political party? NGO? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It's listed as a state-recognized Native American tribe but I can't find anything from the state of Kentucky itself clarifying what they mean by that. I can only find a mention in this article: National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky on the Kentucky Court's website. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I've searched the Kentucky State Archive website as well. If the nation was recognized by two governors, the last time in 2006, surely something would be available. I don't believe that newsletter counts as a reliable source--I don't believe there is the kind of editorial control one would expect from a reliable source. The article was written by a Family Services Coordinator, and if I had to guess (and we have no other documentation) I'd say that her basis of information was maybe a directory entry somewhere but most of all the SCNK website. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am a secondary author of this article, and not the original author. I stumbled across this article while surfing the net, at he time it was up for deletion. I took an interest in the article because I thought it had historical merit. The article did originally make mention of the Chickamauga Cherokee and other questionable statements, but those sentances have since been extensively deleted or reworded. The citations are all from published books, journals, PDF files and documents previously publish online, and follow the Wikipedia prescribed format. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky does seem to have notability in Kentucky, and the article is informative and objective in nature. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC). I have changed my vote to delete for obvious reasons.[reply]

FYI: Since 76.121.154.140 is not a registered user, 76.121.154.140 doesn't really have a vote. As for the so-called published material which you reference, please see the Wikipedia policy about self-published sources (in short, they are not considered verifiable). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote it is a discussion, and Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). However this does not strike me as in bad faith. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think article is well cited and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubbornbull (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Plese just delete it, you have prooved your point. You have consensus now.[reply]

The "Southern Cherokee Nation" was indeed an idea that Stand Watie had post-Civil War, as a way for him to maintain the position of Principal Chief which he held over the Cherokee Nation after Ross and his partisans fled Indian Territory. However, it was shot down at the conference attended by John Rollin Ridge as Watie's representative. Watie never attempted to establish such an entity and soon returned to the Cherokee Nation. If the governor of Kentucky actually made a proclamation in 1893 and this is not an outright fiction invented by the current entity masquerading by that name, then it was likely also a hoax along the lines of several such hoaxes and exaggerations that popped up with the interest in the Civil War in the 1890's (such as, for example, the fictional "Last Battle of the American Revolution" alleged to have taken place on the foot of Lookout Mountain, a story that was publicly condemned by Teddy Roosevelt himself. It was a hoax by two business men in Chattanooga trying to promote a real estate development. Despite its untruthfulness, the story is still somtimes written about it in local history books and articles as if it were gospel truth. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission Stand Watie was a former Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation (and he was), as he was a Confederate BG, but nowhere does the article mention that he is the Principle Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Although, under article V of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaty the Southern Cherokee residing in the Canadian district under ARTICLE 5., have the following rights:

“The inhabitants electing to reside in the district described in the preceding article (IV) shall have the right to elect all their local officers and judges, and the number of delegates to which by their numbers they may be entitled in any general council to be established in the Indian Territory under the provisions of this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all their local affairs, and to establish all necessary police regulations and rules for the administration of justice in said district, not inconsistent with the constitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided also, That if any such police regulations or rules be adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in said district, or in any other district of the nation, discriminating against the citizens of other districts, are prohibited, and shall be void.”

Additionally, The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma argued that article IV & VII were written for the Southern Cherokee living in the Canadian District. This below link was previously cited, but you persist in your false arguments.

Cause No. 07-5024, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Corrected & Final Initial Brief of Appealant Cherokee Nation, pp. 27 & 28.

http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cherokee-appellant-brief.pdf

The 1893 recognition document is on display at “The Depot” in Henderson, Kentucky and available for public viewing, and was reconfirmed by Governor Fletcher’s proclamation of 2006, and by the City Henderson in 2009. The preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the Southern Cherokee nation of Kentucky. These Cherokee people are obviously known in Henderson, as well as Kentucky, to be who they say they are. Your statements are your own personal opinion (PO) or private point of view (POV). Where are your facts?

Comparing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky to what you believe are hoaxes is a false argument and again deceptive. Whereas, one does not have anthing to do with the other.

You also elect to discredit the article by setting yourself up as a self proclaimed expert of Native American History. I have already seen your comments about other Native American articles written for the Wikipedia, and they are generally negative in nature, and rarely helpful. In some cases you were callous and brutal. You take it upon yourself to single handedly decide who has the right to be represented on the Wikipedia. Purporting yourself to be an expert of Native American History could be construed to be a hoax in of itself. Ask yourself do you have credentials that make you an expert in Native American History? 76.121.154.140 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles I choose to comment on of similar fictitious nature to the one you present here. You do have a right to believe whatever you wish to, but you do not have the right to impose those fantasies on everyone else, nor do the authors of the "articles" on which I commented earlier (I assume you are including my comments about the fictitious Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Proclamations by political figures do not constitute proof of anything, nor do they qualify as verifiable, and in any event for it to be "verifiable" by Wikipedia standards it would have to be published in a written source, one that fits Wikipedia's standards. The one you cite, that the proclamation is on display, amounts to the equivalent of "original researtch". And, simply put, there is no verifiable evidence that the group proclaimed in 2006 has any relation whatsoever to that proclaimed in 1893, if indeed such a thing occured. No newspaper story exists that mentions them, and if the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky were anything more than a local hoax James Mooney would surely have mentioned them in one of his many expert writings on the Cherokee. I submit that the 1893 group was a hoax, and that the current organization calling itself by that name is likewise. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not referring to Yahoo Falls, I must have missed that one, as you have many. The 1893 document was previously published by the Kentucky State Government, so therfore not original research. these documents just happen to be on their web site. You obviously have not taken the time to read both documents. Both documents stand alone and support one another. Again more of your rhetoric. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may or may not be such a proclamation hanging on the wall of The Depot, but even if there is it does not constitute publication as Wikipeida understands it, nor does a purely political document such as that constitute "verifiable". By the way, do you realize that removing tags on articles without any discussion or agreement is against Wikipedia policy? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could just as easly cite the states archives, and will as they were previously published as proclamations. And actually, they are not hanging on a wall, they are in a display case in a museum setting. The administrator previously stated they were genuine, and deleted your tags. You are again just harrassing. There also secondary sources cited, that also recognize these Cherokee people.

National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky By Tara Metts, Family Services Coordinator:

"According to NICWA, there are no federally recognized Native American tribes in Kentucky. However, according to the 2000 US Census, Kentucky has a relatively large urban Native American population; there are about 25,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in the Commonwealth. While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky. The Ridgetop Shawnee was recognized by the State House of the Kentucky General Assembly on February 26, 2009, under HJR-15. The Tribe plans to seek formal recognition in 2010; it is based in Eastern Kentucky." http://courts.ky.gov/aoc/juvenile/recentnewsletter.htm 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned earlier that proclamation by a governor is not the same thing as recognition by the state. The Ridgetop Shawnee, by contrast, were recognized by the Kentucky state legislature. Ms. Metts is a family services counselor, not a lawyer. But she does note that the NICWA only applies to children belonging to or eligible for membership in federally recognized tribes and not to either the "Ridgetop Shawnee" nor to the "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky". Actually, the administrator noticed YOUR deletion of the tags and restored them, with a warning you are about to be in violation of the 3RR rule which will get you blocked from editting any article for 48 hours. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does "recognize two tribes at the state level". The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006." And yes Ms. Metts is not a Lawyer, and she has mis quoted Governor's Brown's letter as a proclamation, when in fact it is actually a Governor's Executive Letter (there is a differenec). Also Notice that Ms. Metts states that the Ridge Top Shawnee will contend for formal recognition later, and does not say that about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, because they were already recognized by Executive Letter in 1893. The legislature did little more than make mention of the Ridge Top Shawnee for protection of Native American grave sites in southeastern KY. They have since incorperated, as they did not get the Governor's recognition. Finally, To be more specific and to the point, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky have formal recognition from the Executive Branch of Kentucky, and that is what the article clearly states. The Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission does not recognize tribes within the State of Kentucky, nor does the legislature for that matter (there is no criteria for it). The Kentucky State Governors have been the only ones to do so. The White Cloud Cherokee tribe was also recognized by a Governor, but they are now extinct. Therefore, a precedent does exist for Governors to do so in the State of Kentucky.

As far as the deletions of your tags, the administrator removed them a couple of times already, and you defiantly retagged the article each time. The deletion tag indicates anything below can be edited, I did not know I was in violation. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU, 76.121.154.140, are the one who removed the tags, not some administrator. Throughout this discussion you have been verbally abusive, launched personal attacks, and now you are lying outright. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, 76.121.154.140 is not lying, merely mistaken - it was I who deleted the Hoax tag several times as offensive, but I am not an administrator. Mark^Dask 15:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently been abrasive from the onset, as indicated on the discusion page, and on this deletion page discussion. I will not take credit for all the deletions. I can agree to be civil, if you can do the same. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a low tolerance for people trying to pass off fiction and fantasy as fact. I have never been disrepectful to you but I am under no obligation to respect your fantasies as truth. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough out of both of you. This is an AfD discussion; if you wish to hurl accusations at each other, do it one each other's talk pages--or better yet, don't do it at all. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ — exists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seb, where have you found evidence of their existence? I'm trying to read that mess, the reference section, and have yet to find anything useful. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All you have to do is google Cherokee+Kentucky. The article as it is might have a certain POV, or include irrelevant material, but that is not a reason for deletion. After all, we have an article about one man and his boat claiming to be a country. If there are people who doubt the group's legitimacy, then this must certainly be included, with both opposing viewpoints/interpretations of history. If nothing else, you can give it a micronation-infobox. Claiming that this is a "hoax" is outright false: it would be a hoax to say "This is a group which is..." — but that's not what it says. It clearly says "This is a group which claims to be..." By the way, Uyvsdi's !vote strikes me as odd: if they're state-recognized, why would they have to "do" something? Does the state of KY recognize every milk-can that claims to be Indian? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I'll have another look--which is tricky, since the article is a mess. But I'm also asking because of this search, and a book search gives the same result. BTW, I agree, there should be no imperative to "do" anything. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response to Seb: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines would cover any organization, but most federally recognized tribes would pass these with flying colors, since even the smallest of them is mentioned in books, newspapers, and government websites, and they all provide various services to their tribal members. It's more touch and and go with state-recognized tribes, since most don't provide services, own land, own businesses, etc. and most of the internet hits tend to be self-generated (United Houma Nation is one example of a very notable state-recognized tribe; they've been all over the news in the last decade.) Obviously, the SCNK article will stand; however, it needs to be rewritten completely based on verifiable, secondary sources, and it can't be self-promotional. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
        Oh certainly, all the fluff needs to go, no doubt. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I believe that there is an organization or a group of people that calls itself "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky." I do not believe that they are notable, based on a few searches. This is one of them. As for one of the references, to The Indian Tribes of North America, not all of that book is online and page 117 certainly is not (currently cited in footnote 20), but this search in that book is telling. Even more telling, perhaps, given some of the claims in the article, is this search on the website of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

This may well be a guy and a boat making a nation, but the difference between Principality of Sealand and this nation is that Sealand generates plenty of reliable hits, and the SCNK has none--not a single one. I don't believe it is a recognized nation, I can't judge the scans of copies of the documents on the organization's website, and it's not notable enough in the press to pass notability guidelines in any other way. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra, extra: my carefully constructed argument seems to fall apart because of one thing, one hit, this one, on usa.gov--with no information, nothing, only a link to the website. I still don't accept the authority of the nation's website (if only because of its inconsistencies in the historical timeline), but I guess I have no choice but to withdraw my delete vote. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be withdrawing your vote prematurely. I don't know how SCNK got on that page, but it's presence does not constitute government recognition. It may have even been hacked on. The only federal body with authority on tribal recognition is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they recognize three Cherokee tribes as legitimate: the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since all high schools are considered notable per se, all legitmate ethnic groups should be considered notable per se. As far as Native Americans are concerned, those that have state or federal recognition should be notable per se while those that lack recognition should be notable provided that regular notability criteria is met. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at those references and I don't buy any of them. They persistently claim that anything combining 'southern' and 'cherokee' actually add up to 'Southern Cherokee [Nation]', and that doesn't turn out to be correct. In the end, the only thing that is verified is that the USA.gov site lists them. The rest is synthesis: there are no mentions anywhere in the literature of this group. As for Watie and his contemporaries, no connection can be made between them and this group. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent groups such as the "Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky" are simply that, fraudulent. The SCNK is in no way unique or notable; click on this link and you can get a list of over 200 such groups around the country using some form of Cherokee designation as part of their name: http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/ -- the link is toward the bottom of the page, titled "Fraudulent Groups List". Also, see this: Sovereignty at Risk: Identity Theft, Revisionism, and the Creation of False Tribes (http://tribalrecognition.cherokee.org/taskforce.cherokee.org/SovereigntyatRisk/tabid/123/Default.aspx). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, yeah, after reading through some stuff, I'm becoming increasingly doubtful as well. We know they exist, we know they make some claims, but... hmm... ponder s'more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foir those who like video: Cherokee Nation: What is a real Indian Nation? What is a fake tribe? http://www.youtube.com/utubecherokee#p/u/0/gp7Z4eiEuaw Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new argument, it was presented earlier in the discussion. The CNO has all Cherokee tribes on their fraud list, including state recognized tribes (it is all inclusive therfore bias). According to the CNO, no one has the right to exist as a Cherokee tribe except the 3 Federally recognized tribes. This discussion has now gone full circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the CNO, according to the federal government. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, The SCNK is recognized as a Cherokee tribe in Kentucky, and therefore is listed on the Federal register as a Tribal entity, along with all the other State and Federally recognized tribes. It does not mean that the SCNK is Federally recognized, or that they hacked the USA Gov web site. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does NOT mean the federal government recognizes it as a legal tribe. The ONLY three federally-recognized tribes I already mentioned. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was never an issue, again you are throwing out "red herrings" trying to divert attention from the fact that the SCNK is recognized by the State of Kentucky. Again the discussion has gone full circle. Nothing new. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "recognition" by any governmental body other than the Congress of the United States or its designated surrogate, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is meaningless. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy against articles about state recognized tribes. That is not the issue. The issue is limiting the article to information found in reliable, secondary sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

And that is the problem. As far as I can tell, this is the only reliable source for anything, and it says nothing. (I don't have any faith in this.) I've emailed the site, USA.gov, for information; I hope they get back soon. Seriously, an article right now should only say something like "A group calling themselves the Southern Cherokee Nation, Kentucky is listed as a Tribal Government"--and that's based on a primary source. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yepp, that was my thought also. Make it one or two sentences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck, do you want to withdraw this AfD now that the article is manageable, or do you want to wait for someone (God?) to provide proper sources for the two governor statements, and for me to receive an answer (possibly) from USA.gov? Or do you still want this deleted? It doesn't look like you have the votes for that. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for help on this, do not do any more editing until this can be resolved. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'cease or desist' means very little in this forum. Please refrain from re-adding material that a consensus of editors has deemed unverified, unencyclopedic, irrelevant, or otherwise not acceptable. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page, but edit-warring is not a productive way to enforce your will. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments that the article was left with border on slander or worse. I suggest you wait as I have filed a complaint. This more than just about edits. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert back to an older insert due to the harrassment, slander and ill will I have indured just trying to write a simple article. I want the clean copy back from 2-3 days ago until the dispute resolution folks can take a look at this politcal drama you have you all created. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing clean about that copy. I saw your complaint, and editors there are perfectly capable of going through the history to find 'your' version of the article. In the meantime, it would be wise for you not to undo the work of a number of different editors who have played by the book--Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, for instance. Oh, I don't see what is political here, I don't see harassment, and I don't see slander. If you want to file a real complaint about the behavior of editors, go to WP:ANI--whatever needs resolving might be resolved faster there. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what it is going to be just blank the page out or delete the page. I'm a retired Army 1sgt with 24 years of military service with a BS degree in Educ and a post grad degree in Equal Opportunity mngt. Thats who I am, and I did not hide behind a handle. I used my IP address for all to see. Please just delete the artcile it has been problamatic from the onset. Thanks! i would like have a clean copy before the editing started about 2 or 3 days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

76.121.154.140 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys now have enough "deletes" casted to just delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, I am not going to change my !vote, as I was asked by the IP on my talkpage; it seems s/he is determined to eliminate any potential criticism of the group from the shortened version. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I didn't do a vote count, but deletion is, in my opinion, prevented by the group's appearance on the USA.gov site. I am not sure about the IP's motivation and don't wish to speculate; I'll put it down to frustration--IP, these things can be difficult to swallow. Please try not to take it personally, though I readily agree that the tone in this AfD has gotten a bit too acerbic at times, and please don't think that your efforts are not welcome: they are. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was 76.121.154.140's initial work that saved this article from the first Afd. I think he is frustrated that all his work has been reduced to three sentences - not that he cant take criticism of the group - to whom I believe he has no allegience. So if the article is kept, it is in some part down to his efforts. Mark^Dask 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this discussion enlightening: [[50]]. Apparently the Kentucky cabinet denies having any state-recognized tribes in the borders of the state: “The Southern Cherokee do NOT HAVE legislative recognition. They may have a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials but that does not make them legally recognized. The State has NO criteria for recognition.” Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how that discussion develops--it looks like one editor rehashing and summarizing what others have said, without reference to reliable sources. The article is trimmed and clipped and brought down (almost) to what can be verified, and I think there is at least some consensus on its current content. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I was very frustarted last night, but now realize that my article was an essay, and was not encyclopedic. It would have been better presented in a historical journal with bulletproof references. What is now written is accurate and concise, for the exception of numerous un-encyclopedic comments that were added recently.

The below statement is a very misleading statement that is not sourced: "According to the Kentucky state cabinet: “The Southern Cherokee do NOT HAVE legislative recognition. They may have a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials but that does not make them legally recognized. The State has NO criteria for recognition.”[citation needed]"

The article is not about "state recognition", it is about the SCNK with some emphasis on recognition from two past Kentucky Governors (actually notable, has it happened before?). Whether the SCNK is legally recognized as a Native American Indian Tribe calls for a legal opinion, and According to the newsletter of the "Kentucky Court of Justice", the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is recognized in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by two past Kentucky Governors. The court must be of the opinion that the SCNK is recognized in the State of Kentucky.

Governor John Young Brown's executive letter is not a simple letter of appreciation:

It is on Commonwealth letter head and generated from the Executive Department, it is dated December 26, 1893, it has a seal, and it is signed by the Governor himself. The Governor states:

"the Commonwealth of Kentucky wishes to welcome the "Southern Cherokee Nation", to our fair state, we recognize the Southern Cherokee Nation as an Indian tribe"

The governor speaks for the people of the Commonwealth and recognizes this tribe, and he is not thanking them, for a good deed, as in a letter of appreciation.

Governor Ernie Fletcher proclamation of 2006 states:

"Whereas, On December 26, 1893 the Southern Cherokee were welcomed to Kentucky and recognized as an Indian tribe by Governor John Y. Brown; and against all odds, the Southern Cherokee have survived, as the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, and have a maintained a nearly extinct culture by continuing to burn their sacred fire in Henderson County"

Governor's are far from just public officials, and the Executive Letter and Proclamation are not just letters of appreciation. The way Kentucky chooses to recognize Native American Indian tribes is their prerogative. Respectfully, ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"According to NICWA, there are no federally recognized Native American tribes in Kentucky. However, according to the 2000 US Census, Kentucky has a relatively large urban Native American population; there are about 25,000 American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in the Commonwealth. While there are no federally recognized tribes, Kentucky does recognize two tribes at the state level. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky was first recognized via proclamation by Governor John Y. Brown in 1893 and again by Governor Fletcher on November 20, 2006. This tribe is based in Henderson, Kentucky. The Ridgetop Shawnee was recognized by the State House of the Kentucky General Assembly on February 26, 2009, under HJR-15. The Tribe plans to seek formal recognition in 2010; it is based in Eastern Kentucky."

Chuck is taking information out of context in the below paragraph and applying it to the two tribes mention above that have already been identified as recognized. Both are written by Tara Metts in the same article, but the paragraph below is taking about cultural groups that have not been recognized, while the paragraph above is taking about two tribes that are recognized. Tara metts is actually making a distintion between the two, otherwise they would have all been lumped in one paragraph. Does Chuck do this sort of thing routinely? Please review his recent edits to the article.

There are various organizations across the state that observes Native American cultural practices, but none of these organizations have been recognized by the state government. Originally, Kentucky had a rich Native American heritage, comprised of the Shawnee, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Yuchi tribes. However, most Native Americans were forced to leave Kentucky during the Indian Removals of the 1800's. These tribes are not extinct, but they do not live in Kentucky anymore. They were moved to Indian reservations in Oklahoma. Only the descendants of Kentucky Indians who escaped from Removal remain in Kentucky today. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That this is the case is borne out in the fact that Rep. Reginald Meeks, D-Louisville, currently has a bill (HB 44) in the state house to establish a process to grant state recognition to groups claiming to be tribes within the state, filed in November 2010. Rep. Meeks has filed the same bill in the Kentucky house twice before and seen it passed there, only to be shot down in the state Senate."

The statement above is misleading.

The Bills in question never went to the floor for a vote in the senate, although they passed the house easly. The verbiage used is "shot down" which is misleading when in fact they just didn't go to the floor for a vote. Kentucky has no legislative criteria to recognize Native American tribes and this remains the case, but past Governor's have done so.

The proposed process to recognize tribes in the State of Kentucky:

Legislature to pass a bill allowing for recognition of Indian tribes in the State of KY that outlines the criteria for said recognition.

Tribes that meet the legislated criteria petition the Kentucky Native American Heritage Commission for approval. They vote on the petition to determine if the criteria is met. If a petition is approved by the commission, a recommendation is sent to the Governor to recognize the tribe in queston.

If the Governor decides to recognize said tribe, an Executive Letter is cut recognizing the tribe.

Note the SCNK already has an Executive Letter of recognition, and the possibility exists they would be grandfathered in.

I believe someone is spreading misinformation through the Wikipedia. This person could damage the Wikipedia's reputation. This person is not an expert of Kentucky Native American Politics. Additionally, it is almost like this person is trying to write a politically slanted newspaper article. I believe this person should be stopped from any further edits to the artcle, as all objectivity has been lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.154.140 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE start the new section here. I have blocked IP 76.121.154.140 for disruptive editing. I take no stance on the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this article everything I stated is the truth as passed down by my family and you must not want to hear the truth so I am asking you to delete this article!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.154.152 (talk • contribs)

(NOTE: The author posted this at the top of the page, above the headline which screwed it up. If the author of the article wants it deleted, perhaps it should be. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The author of the article probably wants it removed because of the way they are being portrayed in the article. I read what Tara Metts had to say. The Kentucky Justice Department said they were recognized by proclamations, and not by letters of appreciation or by acclamation alone. The definition of proclamation: "A proclamation (Lat. proclamare, to make public by announcement) is an official declaration." On the other hand, "A letter of appreciation, or appreciation letter, is basically a fancy thank you letter, or letter of thanks, that is used for more formal situations such as thanking senior level professionals and/or officials." An "Acclamation" means a loud shout or other demonstration of welcome, goodwill, or approval, but "recognized means" to officially accept that an organization, government, document etc has legal or official authority. The letter I read from Governor Brown acclaimed and recognized. Are these documents from Kentucky Public Relations or The Executive Branch? Are they group or tribe, it says tribe up above. Just shameful. Stubbornbull (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its present form passes WP:V, and is a clear keep, along with all other Indian nations, some of which may also have a somewhat disputed status. The question of its status is discussed in proper NPOV fashion. This is an instance of an editing conflict over ethnicity or nationality resulting in a deletion debate, which is not the way to deal with such. tribes. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you DGG. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe we should start an article for Wikipedia-recognized tribes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that they are not, in fact, a tribe, the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is merely one of hundreds of such associations, nearly three hundred of them using some form of Cherokee title alone. Check out State recognized tribes and List of unrecognized tribes if you wish to see what I mean. To give them an article and claim they have notability is akin to saying the East Brainerd Pirates T-ball team is notable and deserves a page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from Chuck - but this article says the Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky are at least acknowledged as existing. You would rather they did not exist - but thats no justification for your desire to censor Wikipedia. Mark^Dask 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This group never claimed to have state recognition; they only claimed to have been recognized by two past governors. To now say that they are claiming "state recognition based on a couple public relations documents" is a fallacy, or personal opinion where is the proof of that? The newspaper source, The Kentucky Journal, states that they were recognized by Governors Brown & Fletcher and thats it. In fact, none of the sources cited makes that claim. I think it would be fair to say they are seeking formal recognition, if legislation is passed allowing them to do so. However, to say they are claiming state recognition based on a couple of public relations documents is just POV and/or PO, and until a source is cited to back such a statement it goes unsubstantiated begging for a citation. The Govenor's executive recognition was prior to any proposed legislation to recognize NA tribes in Kentucky, and the fact that there is no legislative criteria in Kentucky would still not invalidate recognition from the Executive branch of the government. I did note censoring, particularly of the Tara Metts article posted on the Kentucky Court of Justice web page, that stated the SCNK was state recognized. The Wiki State recognized tribeslist was also edited to exclude the SCNK as a recognized tribe in Kentucky, and then cited as reason to say they are unrecognized: Current revision as of 01:45, 29 January 2011 (edit) (undo) Natty4bumpo (talk | contribs) (→Kentucky) Line 61: Line 61:

Stubbornbull (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have claimed to be "state-recognized" on numerous occasions and on numerous venues. AAMOF, 76.121.154.145 did so several times above, just to cite the most recent example. If you had read their website before its links became unavailable, you would know that. And have you not seen the article? At the bottom is a link to State recognized tribes placed there by the author; they are no longer listed at the site, however. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anon above is not noted above as saying any such thing, and an Anon is not the same as a rep of the SCNK, as are broken links. Actually, the Anon only mentioned the Governors recognition without saying they were state recognized. I rechecked the state recognized list, and the last major edit ref KY was by Natty4bumpo. The Journal newspaper article that has been cited makes no claim of state recognition, state recognition is actually disclaimed. That aside, this article needs cleaning up to get rid of a couple of OP/POV statements, and original research. Also a another Wiki article can not be used as citation to prove anything. It would be best, if we just stick to the provable facts.Stubbornbull (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT talking about HERE!!! I'm talking about their official website, several other webpages they have, the official discussion on the previous attempt to have this page elminated. They do and have claimed to be state-recognized. In fact on this page the editor I mentioned refers to the SCNK as sate-recognized on several occasions. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked their web site and they do not say thay are "state recognized". This is what I found on their home page: "In 1893, we were officially welcomed to Kentucky and "Recognized as an Indian tribe" by Governor John Y. Brown. In 2006, Governor Ernie Fletcher paid tribute to the Southern Cherokee Nation for its 114 years of existence in Kentucky." I also checked their chat site and it does not make mention of any type of recognition at all. These are the only two official web sites that they have; they have no control over what others might write. This is an exact quote of one of the sources used to write the article: State Journal Frankfort, KY, February 25, 2009, The city of Henderson, Kentucky has issued a proclamation recognizing the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. In Tuesday evening's meeting, the Mayor of Henderson, Thomas E. Davis, read aloud the proclamation which read (in part) "...The Southern Cherokee have existed as a separate tribe since 1835" and "....The Band has contributed to the community....". Further, documentation was shown that "....On December 26th, 1893, the Southern Cherokee were welcomed to Kentucky and recognized as an Indian Tribe by Governor John Y. Brown....". After the reading of the proclamation, the certificate was presented to Michael "Manfox" Buley, the Principal Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. Frankfort's own David L. Fallis, who lives in Springhill Estates, is the Senator and Vice-Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky. It is interesting that Kentucky is one of only eight states that does not have a state recognized Indian Tribe. During this Legislative session, their are currently two bills dealing with Native American definition and tribal recognition. Both bills were introduced in the House of Representatives and both were passed overwhelmingly. The bills now rest in the State and Local Government Committee of the Senate. The Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky continues to live according to tribal culture and currently has over 1,000 members living in several states of the US." There are no claims in this newspaper article about them having claimed state recognition. Actually, their Chief and Vice-Chief are up front about the type of recognition they do have. Again we can not use discussion board info, it is not not reliable, or other Wiki articles as sources. We must always remain impartial, and present a neutral point of view.Stubbornbull (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try their links? If you did, you'd find they no longer work. On several of them they did indeed claim state recognition. One of their members put their name on the list of State recognized tribes. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, in the discussions on a thread of a previous attempt to have this page deleted (a discussion of which I was not a part), several of them claimed in several posts to be state-recognized (see the link above). In its original form, the current page, first written by the "principal chief" of the "tribe", their claim that they are state-recognized was a major argument that they are legitimate. City "recognition" means even less than state "recognition". And yes, since those who have claimed the SCNK is state-recognized here and elsewhere on Wikipedia are members of the SCNK and include "Manfox", we can certainly say that the SCNK claims to be state-recognized. The bill you referred to is Rep. Meeks third attempt; twice before it has passed the state house only to be shot down in the senate, never even making it out of committee. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the old state recognized list dated Mar of 07, and it is just a Wiki discussion, as to who actually placed the SCNK on the old state recognized list is an open question? It may have initially been Swiss Celt, the moderator, based on the proclamations. I have know way of knowing for sure who posted what, or what the links were for, and you don't either. If the SCNK was actually purporting state recognition back in 03/07, they are no longer doing so according to the State Journal Article dtd 2/25/09 that is being used as source for the article. This could be confusing to the reader, if they start comparing the article to what is cited. As of today, the SCNK web site was not alluding to any such thing as state recognition. The thing about Wiki discussion pages is that you don't know who's who, and the info is not verifiable. The 2007 discussion board info is outdated and not useable. The most recent and best source is the State Journal . "The group claims state recognition on the basis of these two public relations proclamations. However, a couple of letters of appreciation from State officials do not make them legally recognized." The foregoing statements are going to require strong inline citations in light of the State Journal article, and the statements are also offering up a legal opinion. Unless you can find a Citation from a verifiable source, it is probably best not to use an old discussion page as a source.Stubbornbull (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Wikipedia article, my friend, it's a discussion about whether the article should exist. Therefore, talk about "verifiablity" for Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. And for the purposes of this discussion, what was previously discussed is most directly relevant. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can repect what you are saying. However, the article in it's present state can not continue to exist as an impartial encyclopedic work.Stubbornbull (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky is notable? Nothing. The group does not merit an article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG. That the group does not have a specific form of recognition, but does have another is something that should be dealt with in the text of the article, but is not an absolute determining factor, as nom wishes it to be. We are not an agency of the U.S. Federal government, we can have articles on groups with the Feds don't recognize, but others have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Beyond My Ken. Whether they're Cherokees or whatever, they seem to be there. Peridon (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky, nothing. They are no more notable than any of the following: Alabama 1. Cherokee Nation of Alabama, Birmingham, Letter 2/16/99 2. Cherokees of Jackson County, Higdon 3. Cherokees of Northeast Alabama, Birmingham, State Recognized, Letter 9/23/81 4. Cherokees of Northeast Alabama, Collinsville 5. Cherokees of Southeast Alabama, Dothan, State Recognized, Letter, 5/27/88 6. Cherokees of Southeast Alabama, Hoover 7. Cherokee River Indian Community, Moulton, Letter 8/3/00 8. Cherokee Trust, Alexander City 9. Echota Cherokee Nation, Decatur, State Recognized 10. Echota Cherokee Tribe, Birmingham 11. Echota Cherokee of Alabama, Sylacauga 12. Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Maylene 13. Free Cherokees, Eagle Bear Clan, Hamilton 14. Langley Band of Cherokee Indians in the Southeastern United States, Letter 4/15/94, Petitioned 1/11/95 15. North Alabama Cherokees, Creek Path/Willtown District, Scottsboro 16. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Fox Clan, Huntsville 17. United Cherokee Intertribal, Guntersville 18. United Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Daleville 19. United Cherokee Tribe of Alabama, Midland City Alaska 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Big Lake 2. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Kenai Arizona 1. Cherokee Family Ties, Mesa Arkansas 1. Arkansas Band of Western Cherokees, Mountain Home, Letter 4/7/98 2. Arkansas River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 3. Buffalo River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 4. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Green Forest 5. Free Cherokees, Helena 6. Free Cherokees, Arkansas Bear Tribe Band, Mountain Home 7. Free Cherokees, Dung Beetle Society, Portland 8. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Band, Hot Springs 9. Lost Cherokee of Arkansas and Missouri, Jonesboro, Letter 2/10/99 10. Neches Tribe-Cherokee Nation, Hot Springs 11. Northern Cherokee Nation, Fayetteville 12. Old Settler Cherokee Nation of Arkansas, Timbo, Letter 9/17/99 13. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri, Melbourne, Letter 10/19/99 14. Western Arkansas Cherokee Tribe, Midway 15. Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Paragould, Letter 5/1/98 16. White River Band of Northern Cherokee Indians, Fayetteville 17. White River band of the Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Waldzon California 1. Ani-Yun-Wiya Society, Bakersfield 2. Cherokees of California, Inc. Marysville 3. Cherokee Seven Clans Council, Bakersfield 4. Free Cherokees, Sutter Creek 5. Running Water Cherokee Indians, Bakersfield 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Buffalo Clan 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Manzanita Band, Redding Colorado 1. Echota Cherokee, Denver Connecticut 1. Free Cherokees, Madison 2. Free Cherokees, Moon Band, Groton 3. Free Cherokees, Snake Band, Oakville Florida 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokees, Bear Clan, DeFuniak Springs 2. E-Chota Cherokee Tribe of Florida, Sneads 3. E-Chota Cherokee Indian Tribe of Florida, DeFuniak Springs 4. Free Cherokees, National Veterans Band, DeLand 5. South Florida Cherokee Band, Bowling Green 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Orlando 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Jacksonville 8. Southeastern Cherokee, Confederacy, Sarasota 9. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sebring 10. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Bear Clan, Orlando 11. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Beaver Clan, Ft. Walton Beach 12. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Blue Clan, Sebring 13. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Crow Band, Ocala 14. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Long Hair Band, Tallahassee 15. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Many Lakes Band, Wachula 16. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Pine Knot Clan, Tarpon 17. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Rattlesnake Band, Bradenton 18. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Turtle Clan, Jacksonville 19. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Wild Potato Clan, Gainesville 20. Southeastern Cherokee and Creek Tribe, Orange Springs 21. Southern Band of Cherokees, Deland 22. Tchlaki Croatan Nation, Pompano 23. Tuscola United Cherokee Tribe of Florida and Alabama, Geneva, Letter 1/19/79, Withdrew 11/24/97 Georgia 1. American Cherokee Confederacy, Leesburg 2. American Cherokee Council, Ochloknee 3. Bird Clan of the Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Albany 4. Cane Break Band of Eastern Cherokees, Dahlonega, Letter 1/9/79, Withdrew 7/16/97 5. Chattahoochee Valley Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 6. Cherokees of Georgia, Hilliard 7. Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council, Scottsdale, State Recognized 8. Cherokee Indians of Georgia, Columbus 9. Cherokee Indians of Georgia Inc., Albany, Letter 8/8/77, Petitioned 6/11/96 10. Chickamauga Cherokee Band of Northwest Georgia, Rossville 11. Dahlonega Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation, Dahlonega 12. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Quitman 13. Free Cherokees, Ball Ground 14. Free Cherokees, Marietta 15. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Band, Cummings 16. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Society, Mableton 17. Free Cherokees, Turtle Clan, Atlanta 18. Free Cherokees of Northwest Georgia, Rossville 19. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Dahlonega, State Recognized, Letter, 1/9/79, Petitioned 2/5/80 20. Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Inc., Dawsonville 21. Ossahatchee Creek Band, Etowah District, Southern Cherokee Nation 22. Pearl River Band, Etowah District, Southern Cherokee Nation 23. Southern Band of Cherokees and Creeks, Ellijay 24. Southeast Kituwah Nation, Wayatali Uku, Warner Robins 25. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Adel 26. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Lake Park 27. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Ocklocknee 28. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sylvester 29. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Thomasville 30. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Valdosta 31. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Bird Clan, Waycross 32. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Dear Clan, Quitman 33. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Eagle Clan, Albany 34. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Fire Clan, Macon 35. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Holly Clan, Dearing 36. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Inc., Leesburg, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 37. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Lower Etowah Clan, Rossville 38. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Panther Clan, Bainbridge 39. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Donaldson 40. Southeastern Cherokee Council, Inc., Ochloknee 41. Tugalo Cherokee Tribe, Canton 42. Uganawvkalvgv Kituwah Ayeli, Warner Robbins 43. United Cherokee Nation Idaho 1. Wild Potato Clan of the Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Nampa Indiana 1. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indiana 2. Midwest Cherokee Alliance 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Paint Clan, Rochester Kansas 1. Neosho River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation Kentucky 1. Delilah Whitecloud United Cherokee Indian Tribe of Kentucky 2. Rainbow Cherokees, Frankfort 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Evarts 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Black Wolf and Warrior Society, Wallins Creek Louisiana 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Deer Clan, Farmersville 2. Four Winds Band of Cherokee, State Recognized Maryland 1. Free Cherokees, Mechanicsville 2. Free Cherokee, Bird Clan, Chapitco 3. Free Cherokees, Wild Potato Band, Hollywood Massachusetts 1. Free Cherokees, Eagle Council, Reading 2. Free Cherokees, Wild Potato Band, Feeding Hill Michigan 1. Free Cherokees, National Veterans Band, Holt Mississippi 1. Free Cherokees, Star Hawk Band, Jackson Missouri 1. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Hannibal, Letter 2/17/95 2. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Deering 3. Amonsquath Tribe of Cherokee, Powhatan Clan, Sparta 4. Central Missouri Cherokee Tribe, Centralia 5. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation, Rockport 6. Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Republic, State Recognized 7. Cherokee Nation West, Southern Band of the Eastern Cherokee Indians of Missouri and Arkansas, Seneca, Letter 5/11/98 8. Elk River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 9. Free Cherokees, Dogwood band, Ashland 10. Free Cherokees, Hummingbird Clan, Columbia 11. Missouri River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 12. Northern Cherokee Nation, Independence, State Recognized 13. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians, Columbia, Letter 7/26/85 14. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of Missouri and Arkansas, Clinton 15. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Missouri, Columbia 16. Northern Cherokee Nation of Old Louisiana Territory, Columbia, Letter 2/19/92, Petitioning for State Recognition 17. Ozark Mountain Cherokee Tribe of Arkansas and Missouri, Alton 18. Sac River and White River Bands of the Chickamauga Indian Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Fair Play, Letter 9/5/91 19. St. Francis River Band of Cherokee Indians 20. Wilderness Tribe of Missouri, Alton, Letter 8/16/99 Nebraska 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Coyote Band, Barnston New Jersey 1. Echota Chickamauga Cherokee Tribe of New Jersey, Irvington 2. Free Cherokees, Osprey Band, Mays Landing New York 1. Free Cherokees, North Hudson 2. Free Cherokees, Deer Council, Brooklyn 3. Free Cherokees, Many Walks Council, Stony Creek 4. Free Cherokees, Wolf Council, Scottsville 5. Mary Trail of Tears Long House, Brooklyn 6. Nuyagi Keetoowah, Inc., New York 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Mastic North Carolina 1. Cherokee Indian Tribe of Robeson and Adjoining Counties, Red Springs, Letter 2/1/79, Ineligible 10/23/89 2. Cherokee Indians of Hoke City, Lumber Bridge, Letter 9/20/83, Ineligible 10/23/89 3. Cherokee-Powhatan Indian Association, Roxboro, Letter 9/7/84 4. Creek-Cherokee Indians, Pine Tree Clan, Cherokee 5. Free Cherokees, Chapel Hill 6. Ridge Band of Cherokees, Ridgecrest 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Cedar Grove 8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Haw River 9. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Silver Cloud Clan, Cedar Grove Ohio 1. Cherokee Delaware Indian Center, Coshocton 2. Cherokee United Intertribal Indian Council 3. Eastern Cherokee Nation, Overhill Band, Columbus 4. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Portsmouth 5. Free Cherokees, Hokshichanklya Band, Creola 6. Ohio Cherokees, West Portsmouth 7. Tallige Cherokee Nation, Fire Clan, Portsmouth, State Recognized Oklahoma 1. Canadian River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 2. Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians, Weatherford 3. Northern Chickamauga Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri, Miami, Letter 9/5/91 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Horse Clan 5. Southern Cherokee Nation, Webber’s Falls Oregon 1. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band of the Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Talent, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 2. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Deer Clan, Bend 3. Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, Paint Clan, Salem 4. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Medford 5. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Badger Band, Golden Hill 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Paint Band, Salem 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Wolf Band, Phoenix Pennsylvania 1. Inagei Tsalagi, Cherokees of Virginia, Allison Park 2. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy 3. Tsalagi Elohi Cherokee Earth 4. United Cherokee Tribe of West Virginia, Sewickly South Carolina 1. Cherokees of South Carolina, Columbia 2. Free Cherokee-Chickamauga, Chesne Tennessee 1. Cherokees of Lawrence County, Leoma, Letter 9/14/2000 2. Chickamauga Circle of Free Cherokee, Chattanooga 3. Echota Cherokee Tribe 4. Elk Valley Band-Council of Chickamauga Cherokee, Estill 5. Elk Valley Council Band of Free Cherokees, Pigeon Forge 6. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Cleveland, Letter 1/2/91 7. Etowah Cherokee Nation, Pigeon Forge, Letter 12/31/90 8. Faraway Cherokee Association, Memphis 9. Free Cherokees, Grandview 10. Free Cherokees, Chickamaugan Circle, Ooltewah 11. Free Cherokees, Good Medicine Society, Grandview 12. Original Cherokee Nation, Chattanooga 13. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Red Clay Inter-Tribal Indian Band, Ooltewah, Petitioned 3/9/78, Rejected 11/25/85 14. Tennessee Band of the Cherokee, Inc., Strawberry Plains 15. Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga Cherokee, Chickamauga Station 16. Turkeytown Association of the Cherokee, Nashville Texas 1. American Cherokee Tribe of Texas, Lumberton 2. Cherokee Nation of Texas Limited 3. Cherokee Nation of Texas, Tsalagi Nvdagi, Troup 4. Court of the Golden Eagle, His Royal and Imperial Majesty, The Oukah, Emperor of Tsalagi (the Kingdom of Paradise), King of the Upper Cherokees, King of the Middle Cherokees, King of the Lower Cherokees, Keeper of the Ancient Traditions, and Supreme God of the Sun, The Cherokee Nations, Dallas 5. Free Cherokee Tennessee River Band of Chickamauga, Jasper 6. Free Cherokees, Hummingbird Clan, Dallas 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Hawk Clan, Mineral Wells 8. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Sequoyah Clan, El Paso 9. Southeastern Cherokee Tribe and Associated Bands, Porter 10. Sovereign Cherokee Nation-Tejas, Mesquite, Dallas 11. Texas Band of Cherokee Indians of the Mount Tabor Indian Community 12. Texas Buffalo Bayou Band of Chickamaugan Cherokee, Southern Cherokee Nation 13. Texas Gulf Coast Cherokee and Associated Bands, New Caney Utah 1. Cherokee Indian Descendents Organization of the Ani-Yun-Wiya, Logan 2. Colorado River Band of the Southern Cherokee Nation 3. Rocky Mountain Band of Cherokee Descendents, Magna Vermont 1. Free Cherokees, Tribal Council, Springfield 2. Green Mountain band of Cherokee, Bristol 3. Sunray Meditation Society, Bristol Virginia 1. Buffalo Ridge Cherokees 2. Cherokees of Virginia, Birdtown 3. Free Cherokees, Spider Clan, Richmond 4. Inagei Tsalagi, Cherokees of Virginia, Rapidan 5. Northern Tsalagi Indian Nation 6. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Crimora 7. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Pine Log Clan, Fairfax 8. Turtle Band of Cherokee, Evington 9. United Cherokee Tribe of Virginia, Madison Heights, Letter 8/3/00 West Virginia 1. United Cherokee Tribes of West Virginia Washington 1. Anisahani Blue Clan, Woodland 2. Free Cherokees, Four Directions Council, Toledo 3. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy, Haddock/Compton Clan, Vancouver Wisconsin 1. Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the large post, but those of you have been commenting as if this group is in any way legitimate, special, notable, worthy of an article here, or in any way more interesting than a particular group of persons dressing up in Starfleet outfits on the weekends, or a particular group of the Society of Creative Anachronism, or one particular group of "Tolkienists" living the "hobbit" lifestyle in the forests of Kazakhstan, or any one particular group of the recent Jedi religion...need to realize that one particular group of this peculiarly American phenomena is rather inconsequential. However, having their attempts to falsify and steal Cherokee identity validated by Wikipedia is not something inconsequential to the individual citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian, or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Yes, I am an information and truth snob. If something is true, I do not care from whence it comes or whether it tears to bloody shreds any preconceptions I may have about any facet of existence; by contrast, neither I nor Wikipedia are bound to support and uphold the unsupported and untrue fantasies of miniscule groups with pretensions to "being Indian". We have stolen their lands, their cultures, their ways of life; can we not at least leave them their identity? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The truth, the real truth, should be available to everyone, easily accessible, which is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. Too many times, however, persons with agendas not necessarily compatible with the truth have used or attempted to use information in such a way that it misinforms rather than informs. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are all interested in the truth here, and that is why we want to write Wikipedia articles in such a way as to be impartial. I can understand your passion for Native Americans, and we must not let our passion for Creator's beautiful people obscure our objectivity. You have a Native heart as I do myself. Maintaining objectivity is a hard thing to do when we are emotionally charged either positive or negative. All that we perceive must be filtered through our personal belief/value system, and that is why we must have a group consensus in anything that we may publish for the Wikipedia. I did some research today, and it seems that the SCNK has a working relationship with three levels of the government. There is the 1) City of Henderson recognition, 2) recognition from two Kentucky State Governors and 3) a listing for them under USA Tribal Governments. I am not sure that the SCNK belongs in the extensive list that has been published above. I do not know who published that list above, or if the list needs to be updated, but sometimes we find sources that that filter nicely through our belief/value system. This is what I found (I did not include the City of Henderson as you already noted the Journal):

"Indian Child Welfare Act Compliance Desk Aid". kentucky.gov, 10-20-2010.
"Kentucky's Annual Progress and Services Report for FY2010". kentucky.gov.
"National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) and its implications in Kentucky". kentucky.gov, updated 9-2-2010.
USA.GOV "Tribal Governments"

Stubbornbull (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Entry removed by the editor who posted it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know if I should add anything to the enormous amount of words, most of which not to the point, in this AfD discussion. However, I just received an email from a gsa.gov in response to my query about the inclusion of the 'tribe' on that USA.gov site. Funny--what she had to say about them may have come straight from the wiki article, and the only evidence that verified that the 'tribe' was recognized by the state was the newsletter cited above. She also added that the group was not federally recognized (we knew that already), and that the USA.gov site should be looked at as a portal: "Regarding USA.gov not having information on the tribe, our website is a portal, which helps direct visitors to other websites that they might find useful." In other words, there's no additional info here, and I think it is obvious that inclusion on USA.gov really means nothing--but that train has left the station a long time ago; I merely include this here since I said that I would report back. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the Federal Government places significance, or legal weight to the Kentucky Court of Justice newsletter published by the KY.GOV in 2010, rather than an old newspaper article published by the Kentucky Journal in early in 2008. We may want to think about this.

Stubbornbull (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm of the Imperial Sanctum

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

Throughout the months of existence of this article, it has grown very little. There is plenty of wording, but completely insufficient sources that supply little value, besides some complimentary DotA and Wikipedia sentiment. If you look at the sources, you will find that they constitute the mod's website, the Wikipedia article for StarCraft II, the Wikipedia article for Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, the Wikipedia article for StarCraft: Brood War, a third-party map archive forum, another reference to the mod's website, the Wikipedia article for Defense of the Ancients, the mod's forum, a link to Battle.net's homepage, a link to the Wikipedia Battle.net article and a post on PlayDotA.com advertising the game. NONE of those link to any relevant topics in the article and simply seem to only say the names of real major titles and act like their referencing will excuse the insufficient notoriety of this subject. Of course, it takes some time for this procedure of AfD nomination to go through, so if there are any major developments or notoriety that may be explained, I invite all who wish to contribute to do so. DarthBotto_talk•cont 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) DarthBotto_talk 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- DarthBotto_talk 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything that warrents notability for this map. Although I do not play SC2, I do feel the sources are very weak. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - *if* there's any "notability" whatsoever it would be exclusive to the SC2 community. I can't find any reliable, significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Storm of the Imperial Sanctum is just one of the many Dota variants in Starcraft 2. It has not reached the cultural and gaming relevance of the Warcraft 3 map, DotA. It does not warrant a Wikipedia article.--Dotaveteran (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure how this survived the last AFD when the few keep arguments either misinterpreted or misapplied community policy. WP:V states that articles without third-party sources do not belong in Wikipedia, so arguments that primary sources are sufficient go against community consensus. A few others said that independent sources do exist for this article, but all I see are the books themselves, spliced in with some original research from the literary works that inspired the books. After several years... worst case this remains something that fails WP:V and WP:N due to a lack of third-party sourcse, and best case a WP:CONTENTFORK that just re-reports information from the main article in an original manner. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete - I really cannot see a valid reason to keep this. Yes, Moore's comics and the film are notable in their own respects. But that does not make an internal timeline notable by extention. Yes, a deconstruction of what Moore used/borrowed/built on/plundered can be relavent to the central topic and should be part of the article on the comics. But it should be built on secondary sources - critircal reviews of the work and/or interviews with Morre about why he picked what he did - not on the primary sources of Moore's work and his source material. - J Greb (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for many reasons: mostly unreferenced/based on original research, what references there are are to primary sources; on a fictional subject with no evidence of real-world notability. Fictional timelines are usually deleted, with a few rare exceptions for particularly notable/well-referenced cases; I see no reason to make this one of them. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a plot summary in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Given the article title, it can either be a fictional timeline and always violate NOT#PLOT; or it can be a publication timeline, which however is already presented in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Nothing salvagable. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons, Sadads (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the rationale of the nomination. The article is original research by synthesis, it's a plot-only description of a fictional work and the topic does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources that address the subject directly in detail. Jfgslo (talk) 15:10, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Valiant Universe

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

Contested prod which dubiously states that there's no consensus that articles need independent sources. If there's no consensus that articles need independent sources then that editor should change WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:OR... which all call for independent sources. Without independent sources that cover the subject in direct detail there is no reliable way to WP:verify notability of this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The reality distortion field is strong in this one. All articles do in fact need reliable independent sources and this just doesn't have any. It is synthesis from start to finish. Reyk _YO! 06:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said in the article lead, its aim is to be a fictional timeline. But that violates WP:NOT#PLOT and hence is unencyclopedic. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, there are no third-party sources independent of the subject that cover the topic in detail and it's a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article easily meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:17, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vodafone Cup

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

This is an article about a non-notable football tournament, which was little more than a pre-season friendly. The article itself has absolutely zero references. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meaningless pre-season friendlies, with some financial input from a sponsor. Matches will not count towards players' stats, trophy will not feature in Boca's lists of honours. Zero enduring importance. Kevin McE (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - standard pre-season games that every football team does; being given a fancy name by a sponsor and calling yourself a 'Cup' doesn't mean this is notable. Giant Snowman 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as everyone here has already said, this was just a meaningless one-off pre-season tournament of zero importance or notability. Bettia (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A set of meaningless pre-season friendlies is clearly not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 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. Sandstein 07:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christofascism

AfDs for this article:

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

Term is non-notable and the article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. Eggbelly (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete.[reply]

Keep. The term is out there in current usage, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/09/johnedwardsbloggingfarrago and is therefore notable. Article is well-sourced and at most needs a little editing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article lacks neutrality and expresses a personal point of view such as "all the "revealed" religions seem downright dangerous to me". Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking neutrality is an argument for a rewrite, not a deletion. And surely you noticed that the sentence "all the "revealed" religions seem downright dangerous to me" is a quote from an outside source as an example of how the term is used? Wickedjacob (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term's history is a little thin but is present enough to be worthy of some discussion and sources do exist. I am also not sure what the rationale is for renominating this article, as nothing major has changed in the past 3 years. If consensus was reached once, we should not be quick to rehash the same debate unless a new problem has emerged. Wickedjacob (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article on topical topic. If editors believe NPOV is an issue this should be addressed though appropriate editing - not deletion. -- Paul foord (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (: here we go again. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Just wanted to point out the original consensus was delete. However, it was never carried out. Term is not notable, hense why it was selected for deletion before. Eggbelly (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the logs for the page, I see that the page was deleted May 9, 2005, when the first discussion was closed as delete.

The page was recreated on May 15, 2005, as a redirect to Christian fascism. (See view of Christian fascism on May 15, 2005).

The page was redeleted on August 11, 2007.

The page was recreated on December 19, 2007, and immediately nominated for AfD. That AfD was closed as keep.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact of the matter is that this term receives only a smattering of Google hits. The term is non-notable and not widely used. Unless Wikipedia is going to start having articles about every term and idea with a Google result, this needs to be deleted. Just because the offensive term "Islamofascism" is notable, doesn't mean that "fascism" must be attached to every other religious group quid pro quo. There are plenty of other equally offensive yet notable terms applied to various religious and political groups, and it's not up to Wikipedia to create novel terms to even some popular culture "score" Non-notable, politically motivated, delete it. Eggbelly (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move to Christian fascism or merge to clerical fascism. This expression can be found in sources, but it means a lot different things: (1) "American Taliban", (2) Christian religious extremists, (3) priests who collaborated with Nazi; (4) rejection of all other religions; (5) Anti-Judaism, and so on. Conclusion. This is not an established and well-defined terminology, but Wikipedia:Coatrack. This is also a POV fork to clerical fascism. Biophys (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian fascism is not an article but a redirect and Clerical fascism is a different concept involving religion abetting fascist regimes. The only thing they have in common are the words in the title. This article is on religions using fascist techniques or fascist behavior. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete or merge (see above).Biophys (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is plenty notable. If you think the article is biased, fix it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that the term has been used and discussed by a series of academic theologians indicates that WP should have an article on it. Yes it is a POV, but the article is about a POV, existing outside WP. Such a POV can quite properly be discussed in a NPOV manner, as required in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about people who can be described as theologians, this is only Dorothee Sölle (may be redirect to her page?). This is pure propaganda, although possibly a notable propaganda, and should be merged to clerical fascism or moved to Christian fascism. Biophys (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hodja has a good point, moving or merging might be logical. One academic hardly counts as notable. 72.130.214.87 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, it's not just one academic. That is, unless Sölle, Driver, Hunsinger, and Hall are secretly the same person. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A professor of theology is a theologian. From the Christofascism#Theological viewpoints section:

Tom Faw Driver is a Paul Tillich Professor Emeritus at Union Theological Seminary in New York.
George Hunsinger is a director of the Centre for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Douglas John Hall is a Professor of Christian Theology at McGill University.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written and well referenced. See my note above about redirecting to unrelated but similar sounding concepts. Also note that Eggbelly is a SPA with two edits and an immediate jump to delete this article. Eggbelly is also adding other tags to the article that editors keep removing. Egg must be a sockpuppet. Newbies don't use phrases like "non-notable" and "clearly not written from a neutral point of view." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute, but this is being used as a conscious nonce term with various meanings, and not a word. Shii (tock) 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't true at all, I don't think you actually looked at the article before you commented. A nonce word is used once, and a Google search in Gscholar, Gbooks, and Gnews shows that is used more than the one time of the person that coined it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked specifically at Christofascism#Usage which is simply a list of nonce usages without even a claimed connection between them. Shii (tock) 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem that can be corrected, though; I had suggested writing it up as a paragraph rather than as a bullet-pointed list, with a section heading like "American political usage" or something like that. Not all the cited sources agree as to what exactly it is, but there's a continuity there as to what they're describing, it's not a list of disparate usages. Would having it as a paragraph assuage your concern? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a connection could be made between these statements my opinion of the article's validity would definitely improve, yes. Shii (tock) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except your definition of "nonce" is off, so you are not familiar with the term or are deliberately misusing the term. If we are arguing about how others are using the term, it isn't for the nonce anymore. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a closer look from the beginning.

It tells: "To Sölle, Christofascism was caused by the embracing of authoritarian theology by the Christian church". There is no such thing as "authoritarian theology". There is simply theology, and it normally does not deal with fascism.
It tells:Usage of the term became much more prominent ... as a backlash against increasing usage of the word "Islamofascism". This is something very different.
It tells:[m]uch of the churches teaching about Christ has turned into something that is dictatorial in its heart and is preparing society for an American fascism. This is something different again.
It tells: this is "Christomonism", meaning accepting only one divine person, Jesus Christ, rather that the Trinity. This is completely different.
It tells: this is unrelieved anti-Judaism, which has nothing to do with anything above. And so on, and so on ("earlier forms of fascism in America", "American Taliban", etc.).

Conclusion. There is no clear definition of the term accepted by different sources. This is nonce term, WP:Coatrack or the both. Delete or merge.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wait, what? "Authoritarian" is a noun. "Theology" is an adjective. The phrase "authoritarian theology" is perfectly acceptable without being a coined concept.

2. Hence my suggesting the creation of an equal subsection for "American political usage," or similar, where historians' and political commentators' views could be included whereas they are currently in bullet points. Would writing the section up as a paragraph assuage that concern?

3. Er, no, it's not, it's exactly consistent with what the article says Sölle wrote.

4. It says that the two are related, not that they're synonyms. This is a spurious objection.

5. Likewise.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Where is a definition of the term? What does it mean, exactly? Is it (a) an attitude ("an arrogant, totalitarian, imperialistic attitude, characteristic of the church in Germany under Nazism"?), (b) a backlash (against Islamofascism), (c) a teaching about Christ, (d) a variety of Christomonism, (d) "anti-Judaism, (e) "American Taliban", or all the above? Biophys (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the gnews and gscholar hits seem to accurately and decisively define this term. sometimes it is even used as "Judeo Christofascism " . LibStar (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article and subject matter is clearly quite unpleasant, but getting towards neutrality, and quite clearly notable from references. It appears to be a 'broad' term, but I don't think this affects its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydigital (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be some confusion, both in the article and in this discussion, between the clearly defined theological concept of christofascism first proposed by Dorothee Sölle, and the vaguely defined term of abuse, "christofascism". Encyclopedia articles should be about concepts, not their names, and the theological concept is clearly notable, with plenty of academic discussion as cited in the article. The article should be reconfigured to just be about the concept, as it was during the last AfD (see [51]). If the term of abuse that shares a name with this concept is notable (which I doubt) then it should be split off into a separate article, where the "usage" section can be moved if anyone thinks it worth saving. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what is definition of the term/concept? It tells: "According to Sölle, it is an arrogant, totalitarian, imperialistic attitude, characteristic of the church in Germany under Nazism". Does it mean that all other meanings do not belong here? Is it an article about "an attitude" or an article about "Church in Germany under Nazism"? Biophys (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sölle's definition is not about "Church in Germany under Nazism", which you will see if you simply read on to the end of the sentence: "...that she believed to be alive and well in the theological scene of the late 20th and turn of the 21st century". And yes, it does mean that other meanings do not belong here, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so articles should be about concepts rather than different definitions of a word. When theologians use the word "christofascism" they are referring to Sölle's concept, so that is what we should cover under this title. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article tells: it is about "portmanteau of Christianity and Fascism", and not about a concept. It tells nothing about the concept. I am not an expert, and after reading this article I have an impression that there is no any concept.Biophys (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. Encyclopedia articles are about concepts, not words, whether portmanteau words or others. The fact that the name of this concept is a portmanteau word doesn't mean that the article is about that word, and the fact that that information is in parentheses in the article clearly shows that it is only incidental to what the article is actually about. The laundry bag of quotations demonstrating ignorant use of the name of this concept by people who wouldn't recognise a theological concept if it smacked them in the face doesn't belong in this article, and shouldn't be allowed to distort this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it should be about a concept. But it is not. It tells nothing about any concept, even after three deletion discussions, first of which was decided as "delete". Hence I doubt that there is any concept. What concept, exactly? Simply combining two words and calling something a "totalitarian, imperialistic attitude" is not a concept.Biophys (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this topic is discussed by academic theologians, as demonstrated by sources cited in the article, then it is a concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 1 February 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 close as the nomination has been withdrawn and no editor supports deletion. Skomorokh 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Herbjørnsrud

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

Withdrawn ~~Unreferenced since 2010 and I was unable to find any references to support notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)~~ We got sources! All is well with the world. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, that's unreferenced since 2006! All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a reference and added it now so at least it has a reference. Not too sure about the external links, however he does appear to have some news coverage Norwegian Google translate Norwegian Google translation due to his views. Can we have someone who speaks Norwegian look this over? Edgepedia (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's this on his website listing media coverage. Edgepedia (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He is definitely notable, and is for the moment editor-in-chief of Ny Tid, Norway's largest left-wing weekly periodical. I hope I'll get round to expanding the article though. Eisfbnore ^talk 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we need multiple, in-depth sources which establish notability. If we can get these I'll be more than happy to withdraw. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person who has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, as shown by multiple references in the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabarro LLP

AfDs for this article:

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

Strong deleteReads like an advertisment. Suspect notability. Article author recently banned after it was revealed the account was operated by a law marketing firm. Intendance13 who was recently banned clearly works for this organisation who promote Nabarro: http://www.intendance.com/experience/clients/ isfutile:P (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completely irrelevant as the article has since been completely re-written. This discussion is about the notability of Nabarro. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There are three separate issues here: (1) who wrote the article, (2) whether the article reads like an advertisement, and (3) whether Nabarro is notable. I am in the process of improving the article to address points (1) and (2), where I accept that there were issues. On point 3 I am certain that the firm is highly notable, and a quick Google search should reveal a large number of references in third-party publications. I will also add some such references to the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a marketing brochure. Contrary to Rangoon, a Google search reveals mainly self published and PR references. Not notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now tidied-up the article and removed the promotional content. Not sure why you are not seeing the same Google results as me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a fairly large firm, with 125 principals (Law Society website) and claiming to have 277 qualified solicitors and annual turnover of £113m. Whilst I cannot find reliable information online about how it ranks amongst UK firms it is clearly well up there. Admittedly there is a problem in assessing notability when we have have firms large or canny enough to employ people to promote them, but there is real substance behind this one. AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, should have looked on Wikipedia. It is ranked at number 25 in the List of largest UK law firms. Admittedly there probably need to be objective grounds for deciding notability here, and size isn't everything, but it is a major factor. AJHingston (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rangoon11 and AJHingston, this is a major UK law firm. Tim! (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The creator of these articles is the only user participating here who sees any merit to them. I would add that the level of personal acrimony expressed here has no place in a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)

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

Contested prods. In September 2010, Rich Farmbrough automatically created over 100 articles on individual years and subawards for Queen's Awards for Enterprise. However, these unauthorized bot creations were empty and unreferenced pages, and were incorrect. For the years 1966 to 1975, only one award existed, The Queen's Award to Industry.[52] Rich Farmbrough created three individual articles for each year, with "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export)", "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology)" and "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined)". None of these titles ever existed, they are fictional subgroupings based on the reasons given for the one real award. For that reason (incorrect, mostly empty articles created in violation of policy) I propose to delete these. Fram (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Delete them all hasn't Rich Farmbrough been sanctioned for this before? Rich should not be making masses of clumsy botlike edits like these articles, per Rich's sanctions and general housekeeping these articles should all be deleted--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These were created before anyone had suggested an editing restriction. Of the complete set of articles, a significant proportion have been populated - see this table:


Year	International Trade (Export)	Innovation (Technology)	Export and Technology (Combined)	Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)	Total awards	Nominated here
1975	76Y	17Y	2Y		95	Y
1974	59	19	- Y		78	Y
1973	66 Doing...	15 Doing...	2		83	Y
1972	72 Y	17 Y	1 Y		90	Y
1971	93	13	4		110	Y
1970	74	25	5		104	Y
1969	69Y	24Y	6Y		99	Y
1968	60Y	17Y	8Y		85	Y
1967	48 Done	28 Done	9 Done		85	Y
1966	86 Doing...	11 Doing...	18 Y		115	Y
TOTAL	4,215	1,236	55	152	5,658

Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

~~Merge~~all articles (empty or not) into one list for containing details for all years and awards.Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you merge an empty article with no sources and an incorrect title into anything? It isn't even a plausible redirect... Fram (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that there should just be one article listing these awards, not a seperate article for every single year. Delete the seperate articles and instead have one single article listing all the awards. But maybe this is unfeasable because there are too many awards? Polyamorph (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clarifying, I had interpreted your comment differently. There are at first sight some 100+ recipients per year, so one large list is probably unfeasible. Fram (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, if there are fewer awards for the earlier years then perhaps the earlier years can be grouped by decade or something. Eitherway I agree these empty articles should be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One single list article, which already exists, is plenty. Sharktapus (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These pages were created precisely because the "single list article" was a mess. If, when the by year and category articles are completed, you were to wish to make a FMTB combined article i would be happy to help, although I am more used to breaking up massive lists into sub articles. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Delete all per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please, and look for more such no-content creations. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have now also added to this nomination The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1966), which was speedy deleted but has now been recreated (with the same incorrect title, and partial contents). Fram (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are the contents "partial?" Even if they were incompleteness is not a reason to delete, nor is a naming issue. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  - They were incomplete at the time of my note. And when you create three fancifully named articles (with double disambiguation, no less) for what is actually one award with a different name, then deletion is the way to go. You could have easily created one exact article and populated that once you became aware of the problems, instead of spending time populating three articles to be merged afterwards anyway leaving us with three ridiculous redirects because you violated policy when creating these pages. Fram (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are correct, the list was only 15/18 complete. You must have checked the source, and rather than adding the couple of missing items... well - another reason to put in the AfD, great! Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      - Why would I add missing items to an article I believe should be deleted? I am not interested in wasting my time on adding content to doomed articles. Fram (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The naming of an article is never a good deletion reason, it is a move reason. Lack of content is also not a good reason, note the the nominator has been trying to persuade an editor to stop supplying content, on the grounds that the article is at afd. This is either circular reasoning or tendentious advice. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I've seen invented names deleted at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I stand by what I said "The naming of an article is never a good deletion reason it is a move reason". In this case the series lists are partially complete, removing the apparatus means that anyone wishing to start work or add an entry needs must build the page from scratch and hence deletion is not useful. If consistent naming across the years is seen as revisionist (the name is the current name of the award/category with the previous category in brackets for clarity (or the equivalent designation for combined) - as used by the administrative body) then it is a simple matter to do the appropriate page moves, via an RM or boldly. Attempting to get the pages speedied, prodded and afd'd without notice to the creator is not the way to change the page name. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

It was noted at the Prod and at the ANI section about your actions that these articles had incorrect names. You removed the prod stating "Contrary to the Prod reason given on most of these pages no invalid year/award combinations have been created". Considering that you have here three incorrect pages for one award, a page move isn't possible, and as the pages were empty before the speedies and pords started, there was nothing to move or merge anyway. Starting from scratch is by fat the better option. Fram (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973) now also added to this nomination (it was deleted at the time of the original nomination, but rather pointlessly recreated now). Fram (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should then start a new AfD to allow time for proper discussion, since that page is complete. Also saying it is "pointless" assumes that this AfD will result in deletion, which seems unlikely as the only significant claim was lack of content which is neither a ground for deleting an article in creation, nor even applicable to several of the nominated articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  - That you don't consider the plain fact that you created three articles per year with fanciful names, when in reality there was only one award with a different title, as significant is telling. That you consider articles from September 2010 as "articles in creation" is rather bizarre as well. The only reason you are now frantically ading data to these incorrect articles is because of the deletion nominations; but because lack of data was only one of the significant reasons for this nomination, and because the other one can not be corrected by normal editing, they will still be deleted. Why you can't just create the articles as one per year, with the correct title, and spend your efoorts in populating them there, is beyond me, but it surely gives the impression that you are more interested in proving a point than in actually making Wikipedia better. Fram (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I am not adding information "frantically", my preferred method is to provide a full and complete list for each year and category. This contrasts with the previous ad-hoc approach of putting all winners, as they were found, into a big table. I am sorry that you think it is not possible to simply merge articles by year, but it is indeed extremely straightforward, and something I may well do if there is no consensus against it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      - Any reason why you not just create one article per year, and fill those, instead of creating three misnamed articles per year, filling those, and then merging them to one correctly named one afterwards? The result of your current action, assuming that anyone gets convinced by this convoluted process, is that we end up with three rather ridiculous redirects and a lot of extra work... Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You end up having fun at AfD... which is clearly the sort of thing you love.
        So no reason at all. Great job wasting everybody's time yet again. As for me loving AfD: not only is that an irrelevant remark and a total non-response to the question of why you don't do something, but it also ignores the fact that I Prod'ded these articles, which you opposed. I would have preferred to avoid these AfDs, but not to the point of letting made-up subjects stand on Wikipedia. You had every chance of preventing these AfDs, but you refused to take that chance, instead trying to defend the indefensible. Fram (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is you that's wasting time with spurious deletion debates. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Note. Finally, the last missing article, The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974), is also added to this nomination. At the time of the originanl nomination, this article had an incorrect category so it didn't show up with the others. The main reasons for deletion (award as indicated in the title doesn't exist, there was only one award that year, not three separate ones, and the article was created contrary to policy and then abandoned). Furthermore, this is an article only to state that the subject of the article doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three categories. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  - Which match the newer awards somewhat, but don't match the old one, which is the topic of this AfD. We don't build articles to match the categories. Fram (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are three categories of award, the categories are referred to as such ("applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year") in the documentation. Pettifogging over whether the names are of the categories of award or of separate awards is fine for detailed discussion of article naming, but not for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      - What "documentation"? You don't seem to have provided any, so it is very unclear where your quote is supposed to come from. The source I gave in the nomination though, clearly states that "The Queen's Award to Industry was replaced in 1976 by two separate Awards - The Queen's Award for Export Achievement and The Queen's Award for Technological Achievement". Your articles don't reflect that change from one to two awards (they act as if there were three awards from beginning to end), and neither do they have the correct name of the awards (clearly not before 1976, i.e. the ones nominated in this first AfD, but also afterwards, where you have e.g. the hideous "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export)" instead of "The Queen's Award for Export Achievement" or the later name "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade"). The one Award that existed before 1976 could be given for outstanding achievements in increasing export, technological innovation, or both, but that just means that there were two distinct possible reasons for giving that award to a company, not that there were different awards. An imaginary division of one real award in three ones with made-up names isn't really "quibbling over details", it is the difference between a verifiable article subject and nonsense, and a perfectly normal subject for AfD.
        The documentation IS the source you gave, the details of which I had previously used as a source for the main article. The naming detail is explained in the main article, you can improve that if you wish. Whether individual list articles, at whatever level of granularity should cover the naming history is of course open to debate, but I would say, by and large, not. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 27th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
        
        Rich Farmbrough, you are being extremely deceitful in your quoting here. You used the phrase "applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year" in your defense of these above. However, you just happened to forget to quote the complete sentence, which is a whopping two words longer; "Since 1976, applicants have been able to win Awards in each category in the same year" (my emphasis). Considering that this AfD is for the award from before 1976, it could hardly have been any clearer that your selective quote was not applicable to your defense, and is actually an argument against it. Please avoid such poor tactics in the future. Fram (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not "my defense" or "tactics" - I am aware that you seem to treat WP as a battleground, and come bouyed from apparently vanquishing an editor from the field, but that is not what it is , nor how I treat it. You insist in treating my explanations as attacks, whereas I am simply acquainting you with facts of which you were previously unaware - since you have not worked in this area before. Similarly with the Seaton Hall Reports, before considering the steps you took, I read extensively and realised that apparently odd phrases were significant as the WP editor claimed. <sigh> Back to the substantive matter - since 1976 they can win an award in each category, before that they could only win one, the other, or the combined award. The distinction between the three types, classes, designations, descriptions, narratives or categories of award is clear, and is promulgated in the document. The distinction has always been there - it is not an arbitrary one I dreamed up. Nor indeed are is the naming convention, although of course the names have changed over the years, as explained in the lead of the article, a matter I am familiar with, and I am happy to consider renaming or merging these pages, in fact I will very likely do it regardless of the AfD unless the pages are deleted of course. And this is the point, the crux if you will. A polite and friendly note on my page saying that you perceived an anomaly in having consistent naming for the pages when the name of the Awards has changed would have perhaps moved me to view you in a more positive light, whereas applying prods to all the articles, which I then had to go and contest simply reinforces the impression that what you are trying to achieve is based on a more combative attitude. Every attempt I make to explain something to you meets with "push back" - all I ever see is criticism and stalking of my edits and projects looking for problems. When you can't find any you trawl back months and look for redirects to take to RfD. That is why I do not look forward to your comments on my talk page, or when I am in conversation with another editor on theirs - they are wholly negative, and suck all the air from the discussion. I still read them but they are not welcome, and unless you change your attitude to a collegial rather that combative one they, and you, will continue to be unwelcome there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johno Verity

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

Professional snowboarder who does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The article claims notability based on his fan following, but that is not supported by sources and the Ghits for his name are either trivial mentions or sources that don't meet WP:RS. bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not verifiable through reliable sources. Xajaso (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Don't Be Late (film)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christmas Don't Be Late (film)

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

No source, possible hoax, can't find anything on google. In any case, fails WP:NFF Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 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 The information about the company appears to be within the Enigma: Rising Tide page, and there is no advocacy for a redirect. Mandsford 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tesseraction Games

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

Procedural nomination. I've declined a speedy on this, as Enigma: Rising Tide (published by this firm) has its own article so it's conceivable that the firm is notable, but as it stands the article has no third party sources at all, and a quick skim doesn't show any third-party coverage (although videogame magazines don't always make it online, so that's not evidence of absence). Procedural nomination, so I abstain. – iridescent 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over the notability guidelines for organizations and this one seems to fail the necessary tests. The company was very small, existed only very briefly, contained no notable individuals, and other than the above-mentioned video game, does not appear to have done anything other than file a lawsuit in the U.K. I vote for delete. KDS4444^Talk 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an irrelevant, defunct company. Not notable and dead. -- Mecanismo | Talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge with Enigma: Rising Tide as at least that artical is well written. Skullbird11 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with Enigma: Rising Tide. I agree with Skullbird11. They only have that one game, and I couldn't find any substantial information on the company. Krashlandon ^(talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure there's anything to add to the Enigma part. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangi Mukami

AfDs for this article:

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

Meritorious individual who does not meet the notability guidelines. Please see previous nomination. Nothing appears to have changed with the passage of a year. ^Bongo_matic 08:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note An IP claiming to be the subject has requested deletion. SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Fleming

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

No evidence that he passes our notability guidelines in article and a search didn't turn up evidence that he invented 'pin art', although he may have been the first to patent it. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Pin Art. What little else there is to say about him can be mentioned in the Pin Art article. A separate bio is unwarranted. -- œ ^™ 08:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he did invent pin art, it's not enough to indicate much significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am copying the following comment from the article's talk page. The writer clearly intended this to be an opinion against deletion, but was unaware that the place to post it was this AfD page. It seems only fair to help the user by posting the comment here. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was present, or within earshot, when the pinscreen was invented. It is more than a toy, it is the physical embodiment of an inspired artistic milestone. I can tell you from spending a few years in Ward Fleming's company that his kind of inspiration is remarkable and should be documented. The fact that it became a hugely popular toy illustrates that it easily captures the imagination. In many ways the pinscreen presaged our current visual understanding of the world as a collection of ordered pixels. Pink Floyd used a giant production version of the pin screen in one of their music videos. I also made a film with Ward Fleming and Blaise Smith based on the colorful light dance that occurs on the surface of an oversize pinscreen. The work was performed by Ward himself and I will now take steps to post a streaming video version of this film to help illustrate how important this device is as an historic piece of art. People and artworks only exist for a brief moment in time on this Earth. The purpose of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is to preserve documentation of noteworthy historical and cultural achievements. The pinscreen, and the artist it represents, are major achievements.76.87.105.166 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of that supports the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject. The fact that you personally were involved does not make you a reliable source: if anything it might suggest a conflict of interest. That "Fleming's ... kind of inspiration is remarkable and should be documented" is not a reason for inclusion. In fact "should be documented" strongly suggests (1) that it is not yet much documented, so that there is little if any coverage in reliable sources, and (2) that you wish to have an article in order to publicise or promote his work. Both of these, under existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines are reasons for not keeping the article. And no, the purpose of Wikipedia is not "to preserve documentation of noteworthy historical and cultural achievements", but to make readily available information about subjects which are already well-documented elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with JamesBWatson. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a type of tertiary source. It compiles and collates information from existing sources, it does not 'document' new ideas. -- œ ^™ 12:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own review of evidence behind discussion above. EEng (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 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.

Article has been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ushio Sugawara

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

There is no indication of why this person is notable, since simply being arrested on suspicion of money laundering is not in itself qualification for a Wikipedia article. As the only reference source provided is in Arabic, accusations of terrorism and money laundering also present WP:BLP problems. Speedy deletion tag was removed by an ip editor without comment. --DAJF (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought so too. Now, maybe there's something here? It's not common for Japanese to have such a connection, maybe a first. Can reliable sources be found?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps-I just checked http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Ushio+Sugawara%22&num=50 , does Wikilinks count?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Quite apart from the question of what sources are available, even if every word of the article could be reliably sourced I do not think it would indicate sufficient significance to justify an article. We are told such facts as that he "was raised in an unexceptional household by doctor father and mother", that "Grandfather is a famous novelist" (but notability is not inherited), that he "made friends with" Abdullah Bin Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa (but being a friend of someone notable does not confer much notability). Amongst all these trivia we find that he has been arrested on suspicion of a crime and released on bail while investigations continue. Everyone who has been arrested and released on bail is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. When we turn to sources, we find that the only source in the article is a link to a page which does not even mention Ushio Sugawara. As for sources found elsewhere, the main sourceable fact is that Wikileaks reports that he has been arrested. (I guess that Kintetsubuffalo meant "Wikileaks", not "Wikilinks".) Yes, there does seem to be reliable coverage, but only of one event, and, as I have already suggested, that one event does not confer significance or importance. The speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP with no other edits at all, very likely the author of the article. My inclination is simply to speedily delete the article, but I thought first I would post here and wait for a while to see if anyone has any reasonable objections to doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I meant "Wikileaks". Okay, good points, make mine a delete with cheese, hold the fries.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Freedom

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

Unnotable software. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom. Perhaps this article would qualify for Speedy Deletion? WikiManOne (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, lack of third party coverage, article is a potential copyvio pasted from a web site or brochure. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Some of the page is just how-to and total original research. I don't believe software can be CSDed as A7. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Mustafaoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of independent citations to confirm notability. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable (sources +Award). Valid entry Rirunmot (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two existing references did not link to anything. Nor was an article quoted. Both citations were bogus. The two awards are not, in themselves, notable enough to support the existence of this article. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An award is an award, regardless your opinion Rirunmot (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. Honorary consuls are not inherently notable per our normal guidelines, as far as I know (no matter if their country is diplomatically recognized or not), and there seems to be little else that could make him notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Several sources added to confirm awards. This person clearly was notable in the 1990s and early 2000s in the TRNC world and Petroleum industries. Article needs work but should not be deleted. Plus, everyone should review the first Afd which resulted in a very strong keep consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:58, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first citation is from an internet forum; certainly not a reliable source. The final two (of three) are both trivial mentions with the last one only having his name in a list with multiple other individuals. If the last one were to prove any notability at all we have dozens of new articles to add about people with very little information publicly available. WikiManOne (talk) 06:43, 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 The additions made by User:Phil Bridger address the initial concerns of sourcing and of whether the subject was notable. Mandsford 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Boulanger

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

Fails GNG. For example, a search in Le Monde + "Gérard Boulanger" -[53] results in no hits at all. In the alternative, the article fails WP:POLITICIAN - "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable. --Stormbay (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stormbay, "Simply not notable" is not a good argument for deletion --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an argument; it is an opinion. I based the opinion on a search that I did and found nothing notable. However, as you see below, someone has come to the rescue. Now, its not only not a good opinion, its in error. Perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn. --Stormbay (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable more as a lawyer and author than as a politician. The Google News and Books searches linked above find hundreds of reliable sources, starting with this and this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I originally closed this debate as Keep, but I then realized that it was created before the BLP PROD guideline was in place. Thus, I am voting for deletion until/unless reliable sources are added to the article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely in the time that it took you to close, reopen and comment on this you could have simply added one of the sources yourself? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:08, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Remix Tracks

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

A single market, non-charting, non-major release such as this is not notable per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, needing additional credible references to support inclusion.--Carol1946 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Nakon 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into something relevant, such Destiny's Child. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 06:00, 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) 00:32, 16 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NALBUMS doesn't mention anything about "single market, non-charting, non-major release". In this case the market is Japan, a pretty large market. The album is still for sale from Sony Music Entertainment Japan, hardly a minor label, and the album gets mention outside of Japan such as at Allmusic.[54] — AjaxSmack 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it has not charted... so far its notable enough for the discography though nothing about what you've just said explains why its notable for an independent page. NALBUMS says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:11, 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 no consensus. I would suggest that a merger discussion may be appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love: Destiny

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

A non-charting, non-major release such as this is not notable per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't get confused with Ayumi Hamasaki's single Love (Destiny): the difference is between the colons and the parentheses. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm well... I'm sure the destiny's child EP will be deleted as its not notable. However Ayumi's single is notable and it should be titled Love: Destiny as that's what its called on the page/single cover. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 16 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from WP:NALBUMS:

"In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."

Clearly, the artist, Destiny's Child, is notable. However, a Google News search doesn't bring up a single mention of the album. WikiManOne (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're at the wrong site. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a search engine for recent news stories. The album was from 2001 and likely not big in the news 10 years later. — AjaxSmack 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NALBUMS doesn't mention anything about "non-charting". And the album, though for sale in a limited space (like AC/DC's Black Ice), was released on Columbia (Sony Music Entertainment), hardly a minor label. The article has significant text excluding the tracklist. — AjaxSmack 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it has not charted... so far its notable enough for the discography though nothing about what you've just said explains why its notable for an independent page. NALBUMS says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Byw the 'additional significant context' you mention is simply a written explanation of the tracklist. Per NALBUMS there is little more than a track listing and so a separate page is NOT required. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is not required per WP:NALBUMS. As far as "little more than a track listing", the article discusses the unusual method of release of the album, the presence of previously unreleased track and remixes and their origins, info on the cover work, and info on the promotional work. That's a good bit more than many album stubs and not the sort of info that would fit in a discography. — AjaxSmack 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a stub, a minor insignificant release which didn't receive independent coverage. Two of its sources are inappropriate (discogs is not a WP:RS and youtube is never an appropriate source). There is no proof for the other claims and the two remaining sources simply tell us that Joseph Khan shot a promo for the album. This could easily be merged to Destiny's Child article in around three sentences. I dispute the claim that it provides more than a track listing. I'm not saying that charting is required per NALBUMS but I am saying that charting would strengthen its claim to more than a tracklisting. Additionally now that you mention it this article struggles to even pass WP:GNG. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleheader (fishing)

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

Page was created 7 September 2010 and immediately tagged for Speedy deletion. This was declined and the creator later added references, which basically are simple examples of the word in use. The talk page claims that it is a widespread term in fishing circles (which may or may not be so), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no angling related reference. In four months, the article has progressed from:

"A Doubleheader is a fishing term which refers to two fishermen simultaneously catching a fish when fishing together" to

"A doubleheader is a fishing term which describes two fishermen each catching a fish at the same time. Usually this term is used when one fisherman catches a fish and while he reels it in, a second fisherman catches one too."

It's been tagged as a dicdef since 12 September, and as a dicdef is pretty poor anyway. Now, surely, it's time for this to go. (Like its creator, who has not returned since 8 Sept.) Emeraude (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best this is a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have an article on fishing terminology somewhere that we can merge this into? Also, if it is a correct dicdef, it should be added to wikt:doubleheader. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's a correct dicdef, why isn't it in a dictionary? Emeraude (talk) 11:31, 26 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wiki is not dicionary Someone65 (talk) 17:01, 31 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highland View Academy

Delete No reliable non-trivial sources. Also, I looked through images on hallway of graduates a few months ago, I did not see the "Notable Alumni" listed there and a google search with the name and school's name does not bring up reliable sources that I could see. The lone mention with a Google News site is a report of an athletic activity at the school however the article is reporting on the opponent, not HVA. The local newspapers do not list HVA's athletic activities in their sports section. If it's not notable enough for the local newspaper to report on, it probably isn't notable enough for wikipedia. Clearly, WP:ORG is not satisfied. WikiManOne (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to claim above: local MSNBC has no results for school name, neither does "the Picket", another local news source. WikiManOne (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, I delisted this school from the Cavalier Athletic Conference page as well as Template as there were no sources for it belonging to this league (which does not seem to have many sources either...) and CBS News' MaxPreps.com lists HVA as freelance. WikiManOne (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 60 hits at Google News[55], including a Washington Times article about a student group that grew into a church as well as coverage in local papers. Also multiple mentions in books shown at Google Books.[56] No reason to diverge from the usual result that verifiable high schools are kept.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are great, do you have any links to non trivial mentions? I looked through the first few pages on the books and they all appear to be either lists which are trivial or published by the school's parent organization which would then make it a primary source. Similar issues remain with the Google News hits. WikiManOne (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grade 12 school, de facto notable per WP:WPSCH. Kudpung (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say at the schools project (which I am a member of) that applies here. Schools are not exempt from the WP:ORG requirements which require multiple non-trivial sources. WikiManOne (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your name listed at WP:WPSCH/P. That's probably why you don't know about WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Schools are actually exempt from several things.Kudpung (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't taken the time to list myself in every project that participate in since every project seems to count its participants differently. I had seen that guideline, however, just because the "schools" project claims that some schools are exempt doesn't mean it is. Also, I note this guideline on the very page you posted:

It is recommended that editors only create a school article when its content shows that it already passes the notability guideline by displaying significant coverage in reliable sources.

This article clearly does not display "significant coverage" in "reliable sources." I don't understand why some editors are so intent on keeping articles without satisfying the notability requirements. If a school is actually notable, then it will have enough sources in reliable places making it very easy to establish notability. WikiManOne (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiManOne is right, schools are not de facto notable; articles on schools should show how the school has made an impact in the world. This is easily done with most schools, but schools that are especially new, minor, or in regions without much media coverage are tougher cases. Just because most schools are notable doesn't mean they all are. Recommondations by a WikiProject do not take precedence over sitewide policy. No opinion on the present article, just a note that the school's small size might be a reason why coverage is hard to find. Them From Space 13:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a high school, and high schools are generally presumed to be notable because they tend to get coverage in a variety of sources. Moreover, this one is a boarding school, meaning that it enrolls students from far and wide -- not just local kids. I searched Google for information on this high school, and I found a diverse variety of ghits. The school competes in a variety of sports, and its name shows up in newspaper articles and sports websites covering a large part of Maryland. They aren't a member of any league (so there's no sports league article to link to), but they compete against a number of other unaffiliated private schools. Other ghits I found include online bios for several alumni (not a source of notability in itself, but an indication of the school's impact in the world), this article about a public school superintendent who formerly taught at the school, a strange item about a group of students who supposedly aim to set a world record for jet-skiing across the Atlantic Ocean, this article about Dorothy Bush Koch (George W. Bush's sister) giving an interview to the school paper, and a Google News teaser about a paywall-protected news article from 1975 about some sort of scandal involving a pretzel company that was somehow related to the school. I didn't find any monographs about the school (which seldom exist for schools), but I found plenty of less significant items that collectively lead me to conclude that it's notable. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete until better sources are shown. As of now most of the article fails WP:V and the bare-bones assertion that this is a high school doesn't make the cut for me since nothing is inherently notable. If the sources found above are good enough for a keep then our notability standards for high schools are way too low. Them From Space 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that your support for deletion does not mean that you disagree with Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), but rather is because you haven't seen third-party sources that convince you that this is really a high school. Is that correct, or am I misinterpreting? --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I worded that badly. What I meant to say was that I don't want articles that only say "X is a high school" and have no further evidence of notability. I do disagree with the ideas behind the essay and I hope consensus shifts away from this lax attitude in the future. The question to ask when evaluating high schools isn't "is this a high school?" but rather "is this a notable high school?" A basic idea behind our notability guidelines is that we don't offer significant coverage of subjects that have never received significant coverage in the past. If the school has received coverage then I'd support keeping it. Most schools have, but that isn't a reason to include schools that haven't. Them From Space 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we have had long-standing agreement otherwise--no high school has been deleted on that rationale for about 3 years now. The basis of the agreement was the realization that it wasn't worth sorting out the few that might not be notable. Do you really want to challenge that and go back to discussing dozens of them a week, one at a time? Would that really be worthwhile in terms of benefiting the encyclopedia , or are there other things that need doing more? DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: user:WikiManOne was banned from editing he Wikipedia on 30 January 2011 for sockpuppetry. Note banned, not blocked.Kudpung (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user "banned" himself (see diff), apparently as a joke (a bad joke) related to getting his account renamed. He's never been blocked, much less banned. I am going to remove the "banned" notice from the user's page because that kind of misleading template is disruptive to the smooth operation of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WPSCH, it's a high school and therefore has notability. It has a fairly good chance to be expanded if we allow it the opportunity to do so, particularly in light of what Orlady has found with a relatively quick pass over Google. Plus it's a much more sizable article than some schools out there. I agree and echo the opinions expressed above that sorting truly notable high schools from non-notable would be a little arduous. -danjel (talk to me) 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verified high school, de facto notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this before, I'll ask again: where in wikipedia policy do we find that all high schools, with or without non-trivial reliable sources have de-facto notability? Where is it? _WikiMan^One 02:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer your question, WikiManOne, it's not a formal policy, but rather a consensus. It's listed at WP:Common outcomes, which summarizes deletion discussions that have tended to have consistent outcomes. "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability." It's based on the assumption that almost all high schools get significant news coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Christian Scott

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

Appears to be a non-notable person. The IMDB references appear to fail verification unless I am missing something, and the national geographic article does not mention him that I can tell. there is this, but if I have trouble accepting that the website creator is notable based on that article if the website is not (and if the website is notable, why not just have a sentence on him there)? VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. IMDB is not a reliable source or significant coverage, the other links in the article don't provide significant coverage, and my good faith searches have been unable to uncover other relevant material. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Through the article links there appears nothing to suggest that this man even exists as far as I can see, except for one non-notable example; here it is tranlated: [57]. Acabashi (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Santos

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable career minor leaguer who was not active last season, hence not likely to ever be notable in the future. Deleted twice in the past already, ha. Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was active this past year. He played for the Kansas City T-Bones in 2010. Kinston eagle (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- B-Ref didn't catch that. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - B-Ref has him listed as playing for the T-Bones but doesn't have his stats.. the T-Bones website has himm starting 20 games for them in 2010... In any event, he is no longer in affiliated baseball.Spanneraol (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - B-Ref is not particularly good at tracking the independent leagues. There's often no way to tell whether a player is even playing in the indy leagues on B-Ref until after the end of the season (sometimes WELL after). This is a problem I occasionally hit with articles like this. -Dewelar (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since his previous afds. Spanneraol (talk) 22:24, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cristian Chiriac

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

Can't find any WP:RS to attest to the WP:N of this artist. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Also, problems with WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. The article was moved from a user space with the same name. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this encyclopedia isn't a place to promote yourself. Let others write about you in independent, in-depth sources first, show those sources, and then we can discuss, but this is just blatant self-promotion at the moment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no refs Someone65 (talk) 16:57, 31 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. Topic clearly notable, article sourced and a basis for further development. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freud and Religion

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

Apparent original research, since there are no sources. Also, this is an essay, not something that would be acceptable as an encyclopedia article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complete non-starter as an article, but a very notable topic with lots of scholarly sources, http://www.google.com/search?q=+nabarro+llp&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&tbs=bks:1&q=+freud+religion&aq=f&aqi=g1g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=f0ddf7f432501006 Seems like a candidate for Article rescue squadron. I will add the appropriate tag. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add I will take improvement of this one on as a project over the next few weeks if it is kept. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always do this in your userspace - see WP:USERFY. Fæ (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge - per the guidelines of WP:CFORK and WP:OR. I put this up for PROD back in September and I see little material improvement and so consequently there is a low prospect of significant improvement in the short term. One can imagine an array of potential weakly sourced essays in this area Freud and sex, Freud and death, Freud and cocaine, Freud and Star Trek... none of which would seem particularly useful as stand-alone articles. Fæ (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this in userspace if necessary. However, this will not be "weakly sourced". Freud wrote about religion in very notable essays including "Moses and Monotheism" and "The Future of an Illusion". If you follow the Google books link above, you will see there are susbtantial scholarly sources. A full discussion of his views and influence would overweight the existing Freud article, so I envision adding a paragraph there and linking to a "Freud and Religion" article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good article about "Freud and Religion" could be created, but is this that article? The answer has to be no. "Freud's views on religion" would be a better title for an article on Freud and religion, but there's no point to moving this article to that title as there's no worthwhile content. Better to just delete it and start a new article with the different title. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- My original issue of original research has been addressed so I have struck my delete opinion, however I struggle to see this as a encyclopaedic topic as it still reads as an essay of 'X and Y' style and would be more suitable as a shorter segment in the main article, consequently my Merge opinion rather than a Keep. If the ground-swell of opinion is that such articles are a good idea, then I would expect "Freud and sex" to be of more interest to the layman closely followed by "Freud in popular culture". Fæ (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: unsourced WP:CFORK of Theories of religion#Sigmund Freud. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding some paragraphs on "The Future of an Illusion" and Karen Armstrong's views on Freud in A History of God, and deleting the former material violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Under the circumstances, I would ask that this nomination be withdrawn or resolved as "Keep" to give me a chance to keep working on the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to produce a worthwhile article. But with respect, if you want to do that, it's not such a good idea to source it mainly to Freud's own works, since there's a strong risk of OR in interpreting such primary source material. It might be better to userify the article until it's ready for the encyclopedia, under whatever name. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have saved the source and can place it in user-space if the article is deleted. I plan to add a lot more secondary source material tonight and tomorrow in the hope of saving this one, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to add secondary sources and will keep doing so. The article at this point is completely different than the one which was nominated (only one para in common). Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're probably right that there's no point in deletion at this stage. But even though I'm the one who nominated this article for deletion, that shouldn't mean that this AfD is concluded, as several other editors voted delete, and they may still feel that the article should be deleted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'The Future of an Illusion' section is poorly composed and sourced solely to Freud himself, so gives no reason to retain this material. The other, less substantial, but more substantive, material would probably have been enough to make me hold-off a delete !vote in the first place, but is not (yet) enough for me to change that !vote. As the article stands, I don't really see it as much (any?) of an improvement over Theories of religion#Sigmund Freud, so am ambivalent over its retention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut down the "Future of an Illusion" section and added two secondary sources. I added a "Moses and Monotheism" section sourced entirely to secondary sources. The article now quotes Karen Armstrong, Irving Kristol, Peter Gay, Harold Bloom, the New York Times, the Huffington Post etc etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have paraphrased some of the quotes, added a section on "Civilization and its Discontents" and many more secondary sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article now unambiguously demonstrates notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no doubt that this topic is notable. If the article is completely useless (I don't have the time to check this), then it should be turned into a redirect to an appropriate section of another article, but with no prejudice against recreation with proper, reliably sourced, content. Hans Adler 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since it was nominated. It now has over 20 sources, many of which are reliable and deal with the subject in a significant way. SnottyWong ^spout 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on the Google search results at the top of the AFD, I find there are certainly a lot of books written on this topic. The News results seem promising as well. Article is now referenced, so no need to shift through them. Obviously a notable topic. Dream Focus 19:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhed Martin

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

Fails WP:Notability If he had actually WON Mr. Southeast Asia, it still would of been dubious at best. He didn't and I don't see anything else here that qualifies as notability. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article already speedy deleted EEng (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safiel, I decline your message to delete Rhed Martin in Wikipedia, Indeed, all the content about him in wikipedia are accurately true.
He won as First Runner Up in Mr. South East Asia which was held last December 3 - 5, 2010.
With the events following details:
Host Country - Indonesia /Batam
Host Committee - Sky Entertainment
Festival Date - 3rd/4Th/5Th December 2010 Festival Producer - International World Pageants
Festival Chairman - Mr. Sunny Oii
Malaysia Licence Holder - YinZi Yoga Center
Singapore Licence Holder - In Queenz
Philippines Licence Holder - Artistudio
Indonesia Licence Holder - Sky Entertainment

Also this is for the event in South East Asia called "South East Asian Festival of Beauty and Friendship 2010"

The reference in this article are reliable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neogenesis01 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete There are no references in the article, except a modeling-agency promotion website. Anyway for the purposes of deletion, it doesn't matter whether the information is true, but rather whether any reliable source has taken note of this person. None has. EEng (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forthwith this completely non-notable piece of WP:AUTO by a WP:SPA. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not noteworthy as runner up, even dubious if he had won. Richard Avery (talk) 15:09, 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signate

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

Nothing to suggest that a Quality Assurance Program implemented by Kaiser International is notable in its own right. Step hen 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability in article or through independent searches. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company with possible WP:COI problems. Qworty (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for speedy delete as db-inc since there's no statement of this significance of the subject company. EEng (talk) 15:39, 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. NW (Talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Atkins

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

Non-notable high school football coach. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created back in 2006, when Wikipedia was still taking just about anything. He's had his biography here longer than most high school coaches would, which is an achievement in itself I suppose. My suggestion to the author is to write an article about Gibson County High School, remembering that "there's no I in team", and refer to the coach as part of the school. Mandsford 03:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per WP:BIO.--Monterey Bay (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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. NW (Talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Burger

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

Non notable hairstylist; only source is IMDB and the subject's own website. Much of article is unsourced regardless. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks Ghits and GNEWS of substance, fails to demonstrate notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 05:34, 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. NW (Talk) 02:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-94

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

Insufficiently notable. Source is questionable. Marcus Qwertyus 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a reliable source for this tank. I can find plenty of mentions, but none are in reliable sources. Several end up tracing back to works of science fiction. If this tank ever existed there does not appear to be enough reliable coverage to write an article about it (and there's certainly no such coverage in the current version of the article). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even Russian media doesn't know anything about this tank. --Ezhuks (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: if (and only if) some decent sources can be found, there probably is enough notability as a weapons prototype. The only source indicated that it might have even gone into initial production before being cancelled, but that reference is really iffy. I'm not optimistic about finding goot sources to cite, however, and would venture that this article will be deleted for it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—It is being reported by the Federation of American Scientists, but it is probably still under a veil of Russian military secrecy. Perhaps a valid tank model, but it may be impossible to find other, suitably reliable sources.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention the tank by name which is problematic. Is the current consensus that FAS is a reliable source? Certainly more reliable than GlobalSecurity IMO. Marcus Qwertyus 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly FAS is reliable in general, but this particular article is indeed problematic as you state. The lack of proper naming gives me a small measure of doubt that it's even referring to the same vehicle, though it seems to describe it. I don't think this is enough on it's own, we need more sources. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 2011-01-25 19:36 z
Comment The T-94 would be Morozov/Ukraine's R&D project, not UVZ/Russia's T-95. It might be notable in that it would have influenced the turret and autoloader design of the T-84 Oplot, but I can't find a single reliable reference. —Michael Z. 2011-01-25 19:41 z
Delete no prejudice to recreation if additional reliable sources are found - has anyone Jane's Armour and Artillery? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment perhaps keep as per "Ammunitions: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" ISBN 9780546677539
That's just a mirror of an old version of the T-95 article. Marcus Qwertyus 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can Akkaya

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

Subject isn't notable. Article written as advertising. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this person, as is required to meet WP:BIO. This was the only source I could find discussing him, but it looks to be self published and written by a relation of the subject. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable WP:SPAM. Written as advert for five lousy British pounds [58] and it sure reads like it. Qworty (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources appear to exist and there is good evidence that this article is paid editing. Zachlipton (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g4, repost, see last comment below. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to fielding

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

Non notable and unsourced low budget film. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, appears to be entirely self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per WP:RS and WP:N. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be about the same film whose article came up for AfD almost a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Feilding. The result was that the article was userfied to User:Chazinator/Welcome to Feilding. However, the film has apparently not gotten released in the ensuing year, nor has it received any more media coverage that I can detect. There are so many unknowns in this article ("it's release date is unknown", "Most plot is unknown at the present time", Zane MacLarin plays "Role unknown") that the article appears to be unsuitable for inclusion at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 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 per A7 by Diannaa. Non-admin closure. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake T. Turner

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Should be Speedy deleted, but suspected author sockpuppet keeps removing the CSD. ttonyb (talk) 02:12, 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 per A7 by Dreadstar. Non-admin closure. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Prout

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

Article lacks reliable sources. Works are self-published and article is an advert. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:AUTHOR and her works fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 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 merge to Fair City. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah O'Leary

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

Nothing to prove notability, not even existence. Only external link is broken. Page contains no real world information but only some piece of a plot. Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of real-world notability. Plot-only summary of a fictional work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fair City. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fair City.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fair City.Thisbites (talk) 15:15, 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Merkow

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

I proposed this article for deletion because I didn't think it met Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf. The proposed deletion template was removed on the grounds that the subject meets the general notability requirement. I'm not convinced of this, however. There is some coverage in third-party sources, but this only really amounts to coverage of golf tournaments that aren't at a high enough level for the golf notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Only reason this article was even created is because the golfer is Jewish and the user who created the article spends most of his time obsessively filling List of Jewish sportspeople. There's 0 news coverage [59] or academic coverage [60] of this player. Almost all other google hits simply mention his stats or that he was named Big Ten player here [61]. Note that basically none of those other listees have articles. Bulldog123 14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable golfer. Comes nowhere near notability guidelines as either a professional or amateur golfer. Tewapack (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As the over 60 refs in the article indicate, there is sufficiently significant coverage here to meet the GNG guidelines. There are also many other dozens of articles behind pay article sites. By satisfying GNG, it satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia (It is sufficient if the subject meets the General Notability Guideline; in that event, it need not meet the golf guideline). Bulldog is dramatically incorrect in his representation as to the news coverage, as reflected both in the article refs and here. The refs relate to many of his accomplishments, and not just to his being named Big Ten Conference Player of the Year -- such as his winning 2 gold medals at the 11th Pan American Maccabi Games, winning the World Junior Masters tournament boys 14–15, winning the American Junior Golf Association's SLI Junior Classic boys, winning the Wisconsin State Golf Association Best-Ball title, winning the individual title at the Second Annual Big Ten/Pac-10 Challenge, and finishing his college career 6th in Northwestern's all-time stroke average.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work on the article, Epeefleche. To take an article that might be deleted from zero to 62 references in a day shows a lot of commitment to Wikipedia. I'm now rather on the fence about the nomination. On the one hand, I don't think that the majority of the sources used represent significant coverage since they are just minor mentions of Merkow's name in articles about golf tournaments he's played in, and I'm not sure the achievements listed above help because none of the tournaments mentioned are significant in the golf world, but on the other hand the sheer number of sources might have to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't get too impressed by it, Cordless Larry, it's a practice known as bombardment or ref-bombing. Nowhere is there a policy which states that if you can find X number of references which include the words "David Merkow", then David Merkow is automatically notable. Epeefleeche has bombarded this article with an assortment of sources, most of which mention David Merkow in some way, but do these sources establish the notability of David Merkow? My opinion is no, they do not. I've briefly looked through all of the sources (but certainly didn't read every word of each of them). The vast majority of the sources prove nothing more than that David Merkow exists, that he plays golf, and that he got a particular score in a particular match. Other show that he is now an assistant golf coach at a university. That's about it. He is an amateur golfer, he plays in amateur/regional/collegiate tournaments. This is not a professional golfer. The fact that he won the Pan American Maccabi Games (an amateur competition which is open only to jews from certain countries) does not establish notability in any way. The bottom line is this: there are sources which mention this individual, no doubt. However, do these sources describe any notable events that this individual was involved in? How can we define whether the events described in the sources are notable? Well, perhaps we can take a look at the secondary notability guidelines, which exist for a reason. Are there any sources which show that this individual has accomplished anything described at WP:ATHLETE#Golf? Not that I can see. There is only one criterion for amateur golfers, and that is if they have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (ex: US Amateur, British Amateur). That would be a tournament that is open to any amateur, not just teenagers from Milwaukee, or just American college students, or just jews from north/south america and israel, etc. Epeefleeche has found a wealth of routine coverage of events in this individual's life which are not notable. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the refs relate to Merkow. Not, as Snotty suggests, only "most" of the refs. Also, Snotty is wrong as to Merkow's status. Merkow is indeed a professional golfer. And Snotty is mistaken in suggesting that the refs are "routine" coverage. That is defined by wikipedia as "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, [and] crime logs", and these refs in toto go far beyond that, with some articles even having Merkow as the main subject of the article (though GNG makes clear that that is not at all a requirement).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed the references which detail his extensive professional golf career. Can you provide a few? SnottyWong ^communicate 21:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. You wrote: "He is an amateur golfer, he plays in amateur... tournaments. This is not a professional golfer." That's wrong. Now, without admitting that your first statement was wrong, you imply (incorrectly) that your first statement was that he did not have an "extensive" professional career. That misrepresents what you said. As with your description of the refs, I think you are perhaps being somewhat less than accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my use of the word "extensive" threw you for such a loop. All I'm looking for are sources which establish that this is a notable pro golfer. Can you provide such sources instead of responding with an extended critique of my word choices? Thanks. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That he is notable is reflected in the multiple non-trivial refs, which are reflected in the article. Focus primarily on those used as multiple refs, are with his name in the title of the article. That he is now most recently a professional, after years of coverage of his amateur career ... you're kidding me now; you've read all the refs, so I'm sure you've seen that he is now playing on a pro tour. And, btw, I'm not sure if you noticed that as an amateur he won the He won the World Junior Masters tournament and American Junior Golf Association's SLI Junior age group competitions--which of course, despite your additional misleading description, are not just open to "just teenagers from Milwaukee".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I dove back into the article since you are apparently unwilling to post the sources here. The only mention I could find of Merkow's pro career is that he is playing in the NGA Hooters Tour, a mini-tour (which is the lowest level of professional golf that exists). He is currently ranked 306th out of 366 players on the tour. The only prerequisite for joining the tour is filling out this application and having $2000 to blow. Yet somehow you are trying to characterize this individual as a notable pro golfer. Look, he's a young guy still trying to make his start in pro golf. He seems like he's trying to work his way up the ladder, but it is way too soon to write an article on him as if he is a notable golfer. He's just not. Yes, you managed to find quite a few articles which mention his name. I still maintain that most of these are trivial mentions in articles that are not primarily about Merkow. All of the sources that I've seen which are primarily about Merkow or provide significant coverage of him are from local sources, school newspapers, or obscure special-interest publications like the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle. You've been known in the past to aggressively push your POV when it comes to articles relating to jews or judaism, and this is no exception. This guy is an assistant coach at a university, just barely turned pro, and is ranked in the bottom 20% of the only mini-tour he has every played in. Furthermore, the coverage of his professional golf career is apparently limited to the Marquette University school newspaper and the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle. This is not the profile of a notable golfer. SnottyWong ^converse 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable to me, but then I am not a golfer.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which sources convince you that the subject is notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, if your interest is finding the most significant such sources, there are dozens of refs in the article (even without looking at the dozens more in the gnews search). Some of the more significant refs are those that reflect his name in the title of the article, and those that are cited multiple times. Plus, you might look to those articles which discuss his winning various tournaments/awards. The refs are primarily non-trivial and primarily secondary sources. If you need ref numbers, I will be happy to provide some of the more significant ones among the 60-plus, but you can probably find them easily by looking at what I described.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a regional amateur golf tournament is not a notable event, regardless of whether or not it got covered by a local publication. Amateur golf tournaments are a dime a dozen, there are thousands of them per year in the US alone. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty -- if the coverage is multiple non-trivial RSs, which it is, it doesn't matter if it is for watching grass grow. It is the core of GNG, which allows the project to escape from editor A saying "I don't think a world junior tournament win, or a State amateur win, or a Pan American Maccabiah gold medal is notable". If they in aggregate receive multiple refs of the sort we have here covering them, the person is notable per wp rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:GNG states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It does not say that a topic is automatically notable if it has received coverage. It is up to us to analyze that coverage, determine if it is truly significant or if it is trivial, determine if it is not just routine coverage or coverage of local interests, and determine if the events being covered are actually notable events. In the end, notability is determined by consensus. I believe I have painted a clear picture above of why this is not a notable pro golfer. If he is known for something other than golfing as well, then please let us know. Otherwise, if golf is all you've got, then this is clearly not a notable pro golfer by anyone's definition, and no amount of ref-bombing is going to change that. SnottyWong ^gossip 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be mincing words.Trackinfo (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS#Golf. Coverage appears to be "routine news reporting on things like ... sports" (WP:NOT#NEWS). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is backed by several dozen reliable and verifiable sources that are about the subject, meeting the general standard for notability. WP:NSPORTS#Golf is a standard for inclusion of articles, not a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no, WP:NSPORTS#Golf outlines what is the general standard of notability for a golfer, so it can very well be used as a justification for deletion. Secondly, records of a person's existence in a certain field does not immediately mean that person meets general notability criteria. Bulldog123 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:NSPORTS#Golf is a standard for inclusion of articles, not a justification for deletion." How does that make any sense? If a subject doesn't pass the "standard for inclusion", then it is not included (i.e. it is deleted). Any "standard of inclusion" is, by its very definition and nature, a justification for deletion. SnottyWong ^speak 22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article indicate that he meets WP:GNG, which trump any sub-guideline.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:GNG. Xdonna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC). <-Single-purpose account Passionless -Talk 20:42, 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf + WP:ROUTINE. I'm going to end up being a bit verbose for a "weak" call, because I think the subject might end up notable someday, but the claims in the article itself don't seem to show notability despite the number of citations and other very hard efforts to show notability, and that's why I suspect this subject isn't going to get above a certain level (below notability) for now. This article seems to still be an article about a guy who just isn't quite there yet as far as Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf. Dousing it in inspirational happy talk about hope, and being theoretically just as good as big winners, and teammates thinking someone is special, and being really really proud of one's own genetic pool, etc., doesn't make a person notable. Specific claims to fame in this article:
- American Junior Golf Association and all those others in that paragraph are children's awards, and less well-known than, say, the kids in the List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions, none of whom have articles.
- Winning the "Big Ten Conference Player of the Year" in golf is of questionable notability; the Big Ten is only 11 or 12 colleges, and someone's golf player has to win every year. The article does not specify how many golfers there are across the Big Ten conference.
- His international "career" is a so-called "gold medal" dependent on 99.8% of his competition in the world (and 97.8% of the U.S. population) being disqualified first — on religious/racial/ethnic grounds, no less. (I'll bet I could win a golf award if 99.8% of people who might be better than me weren't allowed to compete. I haven't picked up a golf club in years.) Again, the article doesn't say how many people were left to play golf in Argentina that week after 99.8% of the world's population was barred.
- He's never gotten past sectional qualifying stage in the U.S. Open, which, as the name implies, is an open golf tournament, not requiring professional credentials except to skip the qualifying stages. Merkow neither skipped to, nor qualified for, the main tournament.
- NGA Hooters Tour is a "developmental men's golf tour" not organized by the PGA (as the higher competitions are); it appears to be the forth tier golf series in the USA.

On the topic of using WP:GNG vs. WP:NSPORTS#Golf: Yes, GNG is the defining standard, and a subject "may still be notable" (note "may") according to WP:NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines — however, the more specific notability guidelines exist by consensus and they exist for a good reason. Conceivably there could an overriding reason why a person would meet WP:GNG and not WP:BIO, or WP:BIO and not a subtopic's guidelines, but when a person doesn't meet the more specific guidelines, that's a pretty strong hint, from Wikipedians who are familiar with the topic in question, that what looks like WP:GNG coverage is probably routine and ends up covering non-notable subjects as well. Note WP:ROUTINE: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." I think we need to take a hard look at which of the (now 66) citations in the article are covering specific sports leagues/series or events (particularly those that have a contractual relationship with the media outlet) and have to give someone 15 minutes of fame to fill their reporting quota. I could be wrong — that's why I'm calling this a "weak" call despite all these points. This is not to make David Merkow sound bad; he sounds promising — eventually. If he's as good as the article makes him sound, he'll meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf someday. Just not yet. --Closeapple (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting post. A couple of points. First -- I have a different understanding of GNG vs. specific guidelines, based on my time dealing with the issue over the years. The specific guidelines, as I understand it, were meant to makes sure that someone who met them (think, a person who did not have many articles written about them--for any number of reasons, such as decade at issue or country at issue, but won a significant international event, would get in where they did not have sufficient coverage to get in under GNG). But perhaps I am wrong, or consensus has changed. As this appears to be a key issue here, I'll leave word of this discussion on the relevant talk page, pointing to here. Secondly, "claims to fame" misses the point, IMHO. "Fame" is by no means the test, though editors often mistakenly think it is. Non-famous but notable is what we seek to include as well. Thirdly, what is meant by "routine" is clarified in the relevant section -- the flavor is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Those are wholly different than the coverage here. It is in fact the number of citations, and depth of them, in reliable sources that determines notability, and IMHO that is amply demonstrated here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - On the GNG versus the sports-specific guideline point, presumably the principal case in which the former might override the latter is if an otherwise unnotable sportsperson (according to the sports guideline) had done something non-sports related that makes them notable according to the GNG. When their achievements are limited to sports, however, I think the case for the GNG to override the more specific guidelines must be weaker. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't mean to imply that "fame" was actually the standard — that was just to use a common phrase. The things I listed were what I saw as claims of Merkow's top levels of achievement, because some levels of achievement tend to make a person presumed notable or someone may feel that the person must have had in-depth coverage because of a level of achievement that "sounds" large, without analyzing the sources — making assumptions like that would allow Wikipedia:Wikipuffery to succeed. As you know, each source needs to be considered on its merits to determine whether it's reliable. In the case of notability discussions, I would give weight to how much each source is a WP:RS not only for its actual facts, but also whether it's WP:RS for making an editorial distinction between noteworthy and trivial coverage on that subject; sources can be in the grey area between "hard news" (valid for notability) and "gossip", particularly when they've established a financial link with the subject area they're covering. Notability is from sources "independent of the subject" in Wikipedia guidelines, and many sources that are normally WP:RS for facts end up being a lot less "independent of the subject" on certain subjects, particularly when it comes to regulated sports and entertainment events in which event organizers determine which media outlets give the biggest boost to the event's bottom line and will get favored access. --Closeapple (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems a bad precedent, a deliberate override of the intent of WP:GNG to delete an article with 60 sources. Of the sources I read, they were neither related to the subject, niche specific or trivial. You can't just take this volume of material and put your . . . but, but . . . opinion as a higher level of judgement. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information. This is legitimate, sourced information. It is not a vanity article, fraudulent or unsourced and clearly falls within the bounds of WP:GNG. Denying that sets this self-administration system on a slippery slope of tossing a lot of valuable and well founded content. Trackinfo (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requirement for determining notability is that the subject meet the standards of either WP:GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not that they pass both. His ability to meet the subject guideline may be dubious, however I think he passes GNG. This is a very large article in which everything is reliably sourced. Use common sense in applying the guideline rather than hairsplitting.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS is just a guideline to when a subject is likely to meet WP:GNG. One of the sentences in the lead of that guideline makes specific mention that not meeting its criteria does not mean it needs to be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As most have said above. Yes, if all the sources were local and/or routine (as often for high-school or amateur athletes), that may be reason to assert non-notability, but most of the sources are regional or national - no question that the GNG metric is met. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs Someone65 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that a lot of people here are being wooed by the 66 references. Please, before you determine that the existence of lots of references makes something valid, do some investigation into the provenance of said references. I am a nobody, and yet I could probably find 66 articles as insignificant as these which refer to me. The arguments made above as to why these references are not sufficient to demonstrate notoriety are excellent arguments, and I haven't seen any refutation of the points that were made. Instead, everyone who votes to keep this article keeps parroting the "66 refs" line. The longer the internet is around, the more thoroughly documented mundane people and events will become. By the standard of "a lot of references on the web = notoriety," we will soon all be notorious.donmanguno (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.161.98 (talk) — donmanguno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Delete. I have looked at all of the sources cited in the article and can find no coverage that goes beyond routine sports reporting and local interest stories, the kind of which any amateur tournament golfer would receive. Many people in this discussion have claimed that there are such sources, but nobody has actually identified which they are. There's an elephant in this room that I'm sure everyone can see, and I'm also sure that I will be vilified for pointing it out, but would there have been any support at all for keeping this article if the subject weren't Jewish? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certain editors have been known in the past to routinely and aggressively push their POV with respect to jewish subjects, so addressing the elephant in the room shouldn't (but probably will) provoke any vilification. I think it is reasonable to surmise that this article was created because of Merkow's religion (in part, at least), especially since he seems to be quite proud and public about it. His quote from one of the sources: "When I make it on [the PGA] Tour, I’d like it to be known that I’m Jewish. Whether it’s wearing my Star of David [around his neck], or having a Chai on my [golf] bag, I want to show that there are good Jewish athletes." Of course, he's not on the PGA tour yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see if there are actually good Jewish atheletes. Perhaps when he actually has a real pro career and he makes the tour it will be appropriate to have an article on him. SnottyWong ^express 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you focus on those articles that mention Merkow's name in the title, and those that are used for more than one ref, to see some of the more significant refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at those and not found anything particularly significant. Why can't you just point to a few of the specific sources that you mean rather than send people off on a wild goose chase? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one and only reason this article was created is because the golfer is Jewish. Elephant in the room, my a**. Just take a look at the creator's contribution history. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for cultural promotion. Bulldog123 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that Bull redact his untruth -- he does not know what the only reason this article was created is, what he stated is untrue, and it does the project and his arguments little good for him to state untruths. To assist Phil, I would suggest you focus on those articles that mention Merkow's name in the title (such as what are currently refs 1, 3-5, 9, 13, 17, 20, 34-5, 48, 55, and 58), and those that are used for more than one ref (such as what are currently refs 1-3, 5, 8-9, 13-14, 17, 27, 39, 46, 51, 62, and 65-66), to see some of the more significant refs. The majority of the commentators at this AfD have managed to find the requisite significance in the article's refs to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search for his name and the word "golf" gives ample results. [62] He gets plenty of coverage. David Merkow Garners All-Big Ten Honors. The first link in the article is for an article about him. [63] You have to pay to read the entire thing though. At the end it says it has a conversation with him and someone else who was interviewing him. So there was ample coverage there. Dream Focus 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Note that WP:NSPORT specifically states that game or tournament summaries are considered routine with respect to establishing a sports person's notability.. He clearly does not fall under WP:NSPORT's golf guidelines. And I think that most if not all the articles mentioned are routine enough that they don't satisfy WP:GNG. It is possible that he does satisfy NCAA notability by being big ten athlete of the year. Is this an award that counts towards establishing notability (see the college athlete section of NSPORT)MATThematical (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viola toeira

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

Only source 2 looks reliable; the others don't seem to have any authority. Search for further sourcing came up empty. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see sources from google books and Portuguese wikipedia Comte0 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Comte0, although the main source for Portuguese Wikipedia seems to be a blog about the instrument. Sharktapus (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources don't look that bad to me (except No 3 which is hard copy and inaccessible to me...). There is possible confusion in the use of the word 'viola' which in English refers solely to a member of the violin family (apart from some nice little flowers). In Portuguese it also applies to this plucked instrument - otherwise a guitarra portuguesa. I've added the link to the Portuguese article, which is well-referenced for a non-English language Wikipedia... Peridon (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, given the sources cited in the article, linked above and found by clicking on the word "books" in the nomination. This is yet another example of the nominator putting an obviously incorrect WP:PROD tag on an article and then, as soon as deletion is contested, robotically nominating for deletion at WP:AFD rather than considering whether his first evidence-free guess about notability might have been wrong. Why do we tolerate such disruptive editors? Shouldn't we be encouraging such people to find another hobby rather than constantly get in the way of the people who are trying to build an encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baby DC

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

notability.. no refs other the allmusic. original article creator, removing valid additional citations tags without addressing it. Tracer9999 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Released a studio album with Jive Records, has a charting single, protege of Too Short, Nationwide: Independence Day, member of The Dangerous Crew. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Keep !vote, or just a comment? The Interior (Talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added one more ref, now meets Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO: two RS refs with significant coverage. The Interior (Talk) 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also had a #12 hit on the Rap charts so he meets another criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Interior and TenPoundHammer above. (Article meets criteria of WP:MUSIC.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:56, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Promotions and Publishing

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

Plenty of links to stuff created by the company but I cannot see anybody writing about it. Unsurprisingly, the author's husband works for the company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company verifiably exists, but there is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources (either provided in the article or identified through my own searches) to establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a re-write of a previous article for Expansive Media Ltd which was live on wikipedia for two years and created by an editor with no connection to the company whatsoever. I amended the company name and a few project facts and tried to include as many notable web links as possible. Then after discussion with a Wiki administrator, the site was re-posted in new form on Sunday including more info than the original article ever had. The problem is that I'm very new to Wikipedia so if you could please offer guidance on exactly what the article requires to remain relevant and live I can have a bash at improving it ASAP. There are plenty of web links that mention and discuss Expansive/Media Promotions mostly because of their tussles with the ASA and their critical opinions of UK newspaper promotions. The fact that their promotions frequently land on the front pages of the UK's (and the world's) biggest newspapers has prompted a discussion over editorial independence and integrity - the balance between 'earnt' and 'bought' media coverage. As the authour of the article is it up to me to state these comments or do I need to link to web resources that state them. If and when I find the links where do they get added to the article? In the main body copy (if so how do I do this) or under the section External Links. Apologies in advance for the denseness of any of my questions : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansive Media. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be much to indicate independent notability of the company. The links in the article seem to be to articles about promotions the company has run but do not seem to cover the company itself. Also written in a fairly promotional manner. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the links I was talking about above, they appeared to be media references of promotions the company had run but did not mention the company itself. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy COI article (but those aren't deleting offenses) about a non-notable subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have this evening added three notable links to news stories regarding Expansive Media. As previously stated I am new to Wikipedia so this took me a while to work out how to edit correctly. All comments are greatly appreciated and, given the opportunity, I aim to amend the article ASAP, as required, to ensure that it remains both relavent and live. Could you please give me a few pointers on what areas of the article are considered 'spammy'. I have attempted to make the piece balanced and the addition of the ASA and Media Week references appear to validate this. Could I be given examples as why this article is spammy or less news worthy than an example such as this UK company : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Publishing Many thanks Julie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have looked at the new links added to the article and they appear to be nothing more than republications of press releases issued by Expansive Media. They are therefore not independent. They also don't seem to contain any information sufficient to write an encyclopaedic article on the topic and therefore may not be significant coverage. My delete vote above remains unchanged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dustformswords: Any thoughts on my previous post asking "Could I be given examples as why this article is spammy or less news worthy than an example such as this UK company : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Publishing Thanks Julie 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)

response - because Imagine publishes actual magazines (at least eight of which are notable enough to have their own articles), whereas MPP mostly creates advertising campaigns, and their few ventures into actual publishing seem to have been non-notable failures? Remember, also, that "what about this other article here?" is not an argument for the retention of your article, as much as it is an indication that perhaps we should consider whether to delete the other article being pointed to. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the comment Orange Mike. UK Publishers like Imagine go to Media Promotions when they want to sell more copies of their titles As do much larger publishers like Future, Conde Nast, IPC, BBC Worldwide etc. In addition, Media Promotion's offers (not advertisements) appear on the front pages and editorial pages of national newspapers almost every month of the year in the UK, influencing millions of readers. I'm a little puzzled as to how that fails to be encyclopaedic against some listed genre publications that sell, perhaps, 20,000 copies at most. Maybe in (my acknowledged) naivety I have misinterpreted what Wikipedia is about. I'm also surprised about the process of an admin suggesting the deletion an article, in response to a simple question raised regarding its example comparison. It seems a slightly terse way of answering a query. The original article on Expansive Media was live on wikipedia for two years. It was authored by an editor not connected to the company. It held no links and no notable references yet appears to have been considered notable for a significant period of time. I have simply tried my best to make the new article/entry relevant, accurate and interesting. I'm not attempting to 'argue' or 'justify' anything. I posted comments which asked the advice and suggestions of more experienced Wiki admin's and editors in an attempt to bring the article in line with guidelines and requirements. I'm beginning to build a mental picture of a scary group of admin's wielding their 'deletion' axes for inexperienced users foolish enough to post articles ( btw that's a joke) : ) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
- reply to comment - I realize I'm generalizing here, but: except within the advertising trade press itself, advertisements ("offer" is a euphemism) are not nearly as notable as actual publications with editorial content. It seems to frustrate the dickens out of marketing people that the campaigns they work on are so widely ignored by the rest of the world; but it's true: the rest of us, with rare exceptions, view what these companies do as noise and clutter, and pay it as little attention as possible. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Juemason "It held no links and no notable references yet appears to have been considered notable for a significant period of time." is why "What about some other article" is considered an argument to avoid. This discussion is about the article Media Promotions and Publishing, not Expansive Media or Imagine Publishing or any other article. On Wikipedia, "Notability" refers to guidelines, (like the General Notability Guideline) not the dictionary definition. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its a fair point Oramngemike but indulge me to describe a recent notable offer/promotion/pointless advertisement that Media Promotions published. They produced the first media promotion on the Harry Potter franchise for nine years. The stakeholders surrounding the Potter empire had previously never allowed a newspaper to use its branding in any way - being terrified of losing control. Potter's minders previously sought, and were successful in controlling the manner in which all things Potter was described, portrayed and presented to the consumer press. Media Promotions broke down these barriers and ran a program which appeared in the Daily Telegraph (a respected, quality, broadsheet - not a trashy, ad led, tabloid). Media Promotions worked with the papers editors - not the ad team - to run a week long offer - on editorial pages - which gave readers access to previously unreleased Potter archive material, gained access to author and producers, which sent readers to exclusive screenings of the new film, and even sent deserving readers to the theme park in Orlando to undertake 'real' reviews. It may appear pop culture led noise and clutter to more discerning and vertical observers - but its impact on shaping a week of editorial space in, a traditionally contrived and restrictive UK newspaper, was significant, and I would argue, fairly notable. Its not life changing stuff - but, to some, its arguably more notable than the latest release of Warhammer v.1234569 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)

Comment - Thank you OSborn. I'll take another look at the guidelines to attempt to further establish where i've gone wrong. As previously noted, I didn't ask the comparison question above as an 'argument' against deletion, I was attempting to gain some advice from admins on where the article had gone wrong in relation to similar articles. I was keen to gain advice and improve the article's chances of remaining live as much as possible - however I feel i'm fighting a losing battle here. Thanks & regards 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
Comment The latest from Warhammer is of vital importance to thousands of Warhammer fans (not me - although it does look quite well done). An 'offer' in the press is a transient, and those who take up the offer, or buy the merchandise - whichever way it's looked at, think the offer is from the paper or comic concerned. They've never heard of you. Sorry to possibly sound rude, but you're in a similar position to a company whose article was deleted recently. They made own-brand goods for some big name outfits. Yes, they had a big turnover. No, they had no coverage because outside the small number (by comparison with Warhammer fans...) of big name outfits and their own workforce, no-one had heard of them. You have a possibly better chance of proving coverage in independent sources - they hadn't a chance. Nothing they marketed had their name on it. They had no scandals. They were doing a good job - must have been or they'd have been dropped like a hot brick. Big names can cope with outside brands exploding on the shelf, but will not put up with their own-brand doing anything nasty. If their cans had exploded, they might have got an article... But they were non-notable. The names the produced for didn't cascade notability down to them. Now, if you can show that people outside the marketing departments (and us, now...) have heard of you, you stand a chance. But always remember, the gaffer's third assistant ('Who? What's he do?) will get a line in the film credits - but not an article here. The girl that sells the ice cream is seen by hundreds of people - but doesn't even get a credit. And definitely no article (unless she regularly laced the tubs with something interesting and then got caught...). Peridon (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks Peridon. I think I get the..er.. giste although I was losing the thread slightly with the hot bricks, ice cream and laced tubs. Apologies if I offended any Warhammer fans, Warries or Hammerheads - whatever their handle is. If I get the chance I'll have a go at improving the references on the article as you suggest. 22:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"

Diego Rios

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

Non-notable businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also has problems with WP:AUTO and WP:COI Qworty (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for speedy db-promo' 'Nuff said. EEng (talk) 04:09, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bashan 125R

AfDs for this article:

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

In the first AfD, I said "Non-notable product. No independent sourcing to back up any of the claims in the article." Although some sources have been added, the root problems remain. The only independent source is the China Business Review story, but it discusses business in Chongqing and makes only a passing reference to Bashan. The remaining sources are non-independent, as they're websites of the manufacturer, importer, or resellers. Accordingly, the product does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources—and fails the general notability guidelines. I had tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion G4, but that's been turned down, so I'm opening a second AfD discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 23:17, 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) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this needs to be deleted. Clearly it's all marketing, and all of that material needs to be removed, but I don't agree that it is without any notability. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adelynn Cupino

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously the subject of an AFD in 2008 which received relatively few comments. I have tried to source as part of the unreferenced BLP drive, but can't find any substantial secondary sources about this woman. As part of the drive, I've learnt that there are many of these Miss Canada (insert version) crowns, and given the lack of sources it seems clear to me that this person doesn't meet the grade per WP's notability criteria. Delete. Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not achieved notability to date. Lack of sources indicates a lack of importance. --Stormbay (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would think lack of sources in the article are far more indicative of WP:NOEFFORT, and not of a lack of notability, as WP:ANYBIO seems to easily be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Yes, the article is in desperate need of sourcing, but apparently her career has not stood still and we have a number of decent assertions of notability which need better sourcing. Among the more notable, she won Binibining Pilipinas (Miss Philippines) International of British Columbia 2002, she is a former Miss Canada and was selected to represent Canada in the Miss Petite International 2003 pageant in Houston, Texas as Miss Canada, she placed as one of the Top 12 Finalists and, as a Finalist was also named Miss Photogenic, she was a columnist for The Philippine Journal and interviewed special Filipino talents, she won the title of Miss International Canada 2004, as was the only delegate to win the crown from BC, she represented Canada in the Miss International 2004 pageant in Tokyo, Japan & Beijing, China, she was recognized as "the most articulate candidate" among 58 contestants, she was named "one of the most successful representatives of Canada in the history of the Philippines", she had front cover and feature article in Pinoy Buzz Magazine (Vancouver), she was crowned and was Guest Judge at the Miss Vancouver pageant held at the Vancouver Convention Centre, she was featured in a number of Asian publications including Planet Philippines, Philippine Asian Chronicle, Mabuhay News, Philippine News Today, Philippine Journal, Philippine Hiyas News, Edmonton Journal, Filipino Sentinel, Pinoy Buzz, and Asian Post.[64] Improvement seems do-able. It's just gonna take some work.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeating all the unverified claims in the article. But have you actually got any reliable sources to support them? That's what's required to show notability. Claiming that other editors haven't put in enough effort, as you did above, is totally inappropriate, and completely untrue, in my case. It is particularly inappropriate when it appears that you weren't able to find any either. --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leap of good faith. That at least one reliable source lists these things[65] would seem to allow a reasonable presumption that the information exists elsewhere even without you as the deletion nominator being able to find them. The source's email and contact information is provided on their website,[66] and they may be happy to provide you with links to their own sources... however, I am not making a long distance call to Vancouver. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep a watch on this article to see Schmidt's reliable sources. I must have missed them in the time I spent looking for sources prior to giving my opinion above. Stormbay (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source cited by Michael above [67] is not an independent source reporting on the subject. Rather, it's the web site of a show on a community channel (somewhat like public-access television) for which the subject works as a correspondent, on a page providing the resumes of their correspondents. I suspect that all the information about the subject on that page was provided by the subject or someone representing her. While the producers of Pinoy Buzz Vancouver may be vouching for the accuracy of the subject's credentials, they are not an independent source that confirms the notability of those credentials. In terms of reliable independent sources, the best I have been able to find about the subject is three sentences referring to her in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gizburg Duck

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

Generally non notable group which also fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look on Google gives 0 reliable sources out of all 573 hits, with 0 hits on news, scholar, and books. No claim that the group meets WP:BAND given in the article. --Danger (talk) 13:05, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeAuthThis

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

Non-notable podcast, page creator objected against speedy deletion. Epass (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When searing "John Draper Interview" on google the first page (under video results) lists DeAuthThis's episodes 3 interviewing John Draper http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1033&q=john+draper+interview&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH_hkZwBo18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer5050 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 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, Courcelles 02:09, 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) 00:03, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Walker

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

Blogger of questionable notability. Very little significant coverage in independent publications - Google news search only shows one reference. Most other sources found are blogs or of questionable verifiability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a blogger has already been established as the creator of a "blog to watch", as referenced in the 2007 Daily Front Row article.

Bawana90210 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:13, 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) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite my initial skepticism, the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable indpendent sources and hence the article passes WP:N. All that overuse of bold text needs to go, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reasoning

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

There is no evidence of notability of this band. The article contains no independent sources, despite being tagged since September 2010, and searches have failed to produce any independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage found was unconvincing but putting it here in case others disagree: Music in Belgium: [68], [69], [70], Midlands Rocks. Nothing else found.--Michig (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is scantly sourced, and there is not a proof of notability. They do have ties with notable artists and bands, although none of the listed artists in the infobox have their own wikipedia articles. The label, Coment Music, is also not on wikipedia, which they have released three albums through. To be honest, I don't like voting delete for this page; that probably has partly to do with the fact that I like this band. Adding some more sources to this page would make me possibly consider having this page kept. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 07:14, 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) 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the bass player and founder member of the band The Reasoning. I see our page is up for deletion. Not quite sure how this process works but I have to say that all the information here is correct. It could be worded better and I will endeavour to do that, but everything stated is true. I have no idea where the guys disputing this got their information from. Anyway,if anyone wants to contact me about this matter, please forward all correspondence to info@thereasoning.com.

Thank you.

Matthew Cohen The Reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBass6 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested that the information is not "correct". The article has been nominated for deletion because there seems to be no evidence that the band is notable, not because teh information given is thought to be inaccurate. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music) will give you an indication what is required to demonstrate notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Bobkov

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. I am not able to verify claim that he has played in KHL. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Rita Moritan (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~This source states he played for Metallurg Magnitogorsk, a KHL team. Meets criteria 1 of WP:NHOCKEY.~~ Also meets critieria 4: "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league" according to the source nominator added: several awards given by junior league.The Interior(Talk) 18:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 0 under games played indicates he sat on the bench but did not actually play in a game. However, he did play in the Russian Major League. I feel his significant international achievements make him notable however. Grsz 11 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, perhaps the KHL connection is shaky. We could consider his Gold at the World Junior Championships a "preeminent honour". I find it a bit odd that selection for a national junior team is not a notability benchmark - these are literally the best amateur players in the world. The Interior(Talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a benchmark because they are only the best amateurs of their age. The World Championships/Olympics are the benchmark because they are the best of any age. (junior players have played at the world championships). Team medals haven't been counted as preeminent honours either, only individual honours so he wouldn't meet through that avenue either. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - But as I'm sure you're aware, neither the Olympics or W.C. are amateur competitions, the U20 W.C. is the highest-level amateur international comp. But back to the notability reqs., he was "U18 WJC Best Goaltender", which is an individual award. The Interior (Talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional ice hockey players participate in the World Juniors and U18's all the time, just like how amateur players often participate in the Olympics or WC. That's the thing with hockey; there is no defined amateur competition because professionals and amateurs are both always eligible. And NHOCKEY 4 is "Achieved preeminent honours in a lower minor league", keyword league, not tournament. NHOCKEY 4 refers to someone winning an award that was determined over the course of a season, not a week or two-week long tournament. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misconception that because professionals compete that they are not amateur competitions. Amateur competitions just means that players are not paid to compete in them. As such both are still amateur because the Olympics don't pay the players to play in them, not do the World Juniors. -DJSasso (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is about an athlete who fails his sport's notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 23:47, 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. Consensus here actually seems to be that all articles of this type should go, I suggest opening a wider discussion or a mass afd on that subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of 2011

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous nomination was back in October, before there was any real content in the article. In the past day, the article was created using text from other articles. It is a complete content fork, I suppose trying to make a prose version of Category:2011 meteorology. For convenience, I linked in the article where all of the sections come from.

The main reason I'm proposing deletion is because it's January 17th, and the article already has a lot of (redundant) info. There simply will be too much for it to be stable by the end of the year. As I mentioned in a previous AFD that was "no consensus", there is no scope of the article, just a mish mash of everything weather related in one article. Again, that is what categories are for. Might I point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. While the article is currently in decent shape, that is only because it copies for content from five different articles. The previous article can show how the article quickly turns to messiness when it tries to cover every last storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, i'll modify the article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my concern at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am completely opposed to these Global Storm Articles to begin with and favor the solutions brought forth following previous AFDs. This article takes it a step further because as it has been pointed out, this is merely a mess of separate articles merged into one. As usual with these articles this one already is setting itself up to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. It is time to move forward and find an alternate solution to this type of article. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions - I have revamped and reconstructed this article just like 2009 and previous articles after the nomination. If that too doesn't work, all they articles should be deleted as all of them are a probably "mess of separate articles merged into one". --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 is not exactly a model article itself, clearly it too has issues with being a directory of often trivial information. The fact is that all these articles are choppy, very long and often times redundant to other content that already exists on Wikipedia. In my opinion this article must be nipped in the butt, and we must set a precedent for simple disambiguation rather than a sloppy indiscriminate collection of information. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these articles must be converted to disambiguation pages. Alright, lets try that then. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you include every tropical cyclone, when there are already dabs covering them? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would include every tropical and extra tropical event because there are in some way related to this article. I dont have the strength to oppose each and every person. If you feel that this article is useless in every way, you may delete it right away! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly just a list, and a legitimate/notable list, just like Global storm activity of early 2010 and other similar lists. Yes, it should be improved and extended. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles didn't even exist until about a half a year ago to my knowledge, one day I awoke to see these massive messes of information that pretty much duplicate information already available. If someone wants to find out about a hurricane then look at 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, or if it is a tornado outbreak they can refer to tornadoes of 2011; we even have articles on things like the winter in Europe, or the infrequent and rare South Atlantic tropical cyclone. All this stuff exists, so it makes the need for this "list" irrelevant. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of weather reports. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the article changed greatly after my delete comment [71], I agree with those below that this can now be better dealt with as a category. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I believe that it could be expanded, which would make me lean to "keep", but if no effort is made, I will say "delete"--12george1 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a duplication of Category:2011 meteorology.—Diiscool (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a short list lacking any context. This is one of the uncommon cases when a Category is much preferable than this type of checklist. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic has not been analyzed by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 09:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't yet seen a good reason for deletion, particularly since the concept of tracking the year's weather seems to be established, and since the seven events listed so far in the first 33 days of 2011 are apparently notable enough for their own article. With regard to the "no content" objection, it apparently had quite a bit of content until someone cut it way down [72], apparently because the nominator objected to it being a summary of info from the linked articles. After it was trimmed, the objection became that it was just a duplicate of a category. The "not analyzed by secondary sources" objection makes no sense at all to me-- I think it's premature to expect the media to talk about what a wild year 2011 was. We've had some very good articles about the weather events in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. What I perceive is that the persons who would work on this particular article are holding off on editing it because of fear that their work will go to waste. If it's the concept, then nominate 'em all at the same time; if it's the execution, then there's certainly a good model for pages of this nature to emulate. Mandsford 18:57, 2 February 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. NW (Talk) 02:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autophagy network and SUMO network

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

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

These two articles consist of a long list of proteins, an even longer list of references and some statistical analysis. They have been created by text-mining analysis ("as published in the last 500 newest PubMed entries") and thus constitute original research. I don't see anything of encyclopedic value that could be salvaged into the main articles on autophagy and SUMO protein. MichaK (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – The core of each article is a gene network created using the Cytoscape computer program and hence constitutes original research. Boghog (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:15, 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) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Nom and Boghog. FWIW, I checked the creator's other contribs but couldn't find any similar articles. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diggy Simmons

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notability. Sources are not significant or independent. No real notability; just being the son of a rapper doesn't mean that he is automatically notable. Ei1sos (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you read the article a bit you would see that he was just more than the son of a rapper. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No doubt, as Candyo32 suggests, the subject is more than the son of a rapper. Whatever he is, though, he doesn't meet either the GNG or any other notability criteria. The nom in the previous AfD hit the nail right on the head: the subject's claim to fame is a reality show (on which article he's already prominently featured) and several mixtapes that haven't charted or have gone into national rotation. That he was in a commercial is scarcely notable (given that the vast number of commercial actors are never even named), and presuming the allegation that Atlantic Records has signed him is true, that isn't notable either. What part of WP:BAND does anyone allege he meets? Ravenswing 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Run's House. He may become notable in the future now that he signed to a label. But in the meantime, Run's House has a short bio on him which makes it a good target for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Run's House. Since the last nom there was no substantial change and I still don't see the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO addressed or the GNG. Again no prejudice against recreation if something charts or a release attracts substantial coverage. Hekerui (talk) 16:23, 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.