Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 6

< 5 January	7 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 redirect to Avril Lavigne. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Was only released as a radio airplay single in a country other than album's origin. Poorly sourced (includes one fansite), holds no other significant notability other than it existed. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avril Lavine. This article fails WP:Notability (music), specifically:

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9."

There is nothing special or significant about this song, therefore it does not warrant its own page. Epass (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This single has in a chart in New Zeland. And there are a clip video. --Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line of WP:Music that is mainly referring to is this one: Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Although it did make it onto the Australian charts, I do not think that there is "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" for this song. Epass (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One foreign chart ranking, to me, does not define the song as having been "significantly charted". ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I find it funny that Victor Maxzuco considers a fan-made leaked video clip notable? YouTube is full of thousands of video clips, made by fans, for songs which did not receive an official music video. Not only in the information here not detailed, it is sourced from a fansite and frankly such information could be merged to the parent album. Charting aside songs need to receive independent coverage. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this single is notable, all singles relased by Avril did a big sucess in the world. --Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song may have been "successful", but it is not "notable". ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just improved the article about as good as it can get with the information provided in an attempt to be sure it should be deleted, but it still seems to fail WP:NSONGS. The song has been used in movies, but its only indication of notability appears to be the fact that it charted in New Zealand--which I don't interpret as significant. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:36, 10 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 Shelburne,_Vermont#Schools. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shelburne Community School

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

Delete. School is not notable. It merely exists. Lower grade schools tend to be targets of vandalism and have very high maintenance, as a result. They are undesirable unless done for true notability. Student7 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shelburne, Vermont#Schools, as is usual for lower-than-secondary schools. No evidence of any particular notability. - htonl (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shelburne, Vermont#Schools per htonl. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 7 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.

Jon Krampner

The result was Userfied as an obvious autobiography, see also Ticket:2011010610002321. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable actor. My db-bio tag was removed with the strangely vague claim that having been published automatically makes an author notable. There are no reliable sources for this person, and most of this "bio" is about other people. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is difficult to find any biographical facts about him, however, published authors should be noted through their works . Krampner is a contributor to NY Times, LA Times and an author of the books on TV and entertainment history. His books were reviewed by important US media (see the article, G-News archives and G-Books archives). The coverage is in my opinion sufficient, the information is useful for this project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:59, 7 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2015 MLS SuperDraft

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

This really should just be a speedy delete considering how 2013 was deleted through afd. this definitely against WP:CRYSRTAL JDDJS (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, and precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 MLS SuperDraft. - htonl (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single transaction is not enough. There should be some threshold number that drafts need to meet before they're created, such as five (even though this is completely arbitrary) But for now, the one trade info should be merged to the bottom of 2012 MLS SuperDraft. Ravendrop (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not collect any traded picks on a dedicated page in someone's userspace, similiar to this page for NHL picks? This way, the 2015 traded pick does not become forgotten once the 2015 article eventually has been created in mid-2014 or so. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would work as well. I was not aware of such a page before hand but like the idea. Ravendrop (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Htonl. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - four years away?! WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an event 4 years in the future. The one piece of information could be added to MLS SuperDraft until it is time to recreate the article, ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:57, 7 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Sport Bike Association

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

Fails WP:ORG. Can't turn up even a single mention of this group in any newspapers, magazines, books, or reliable web sites. Dbratland (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable generic motorcycle club lacking WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. tedder (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 10 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 by JohnCD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frako girls

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

Clearly not notable. Check history and you will see that it is written by someone associated with this 'group'. No sources. AndrewvdBK (talk) 22:12, 6 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Brotherhood

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is a single article about single incident in 2007, when the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club started a brawl with the Warrior Brotherhood. They show up a few times in AMA club lists [1][2] and in a few short notices about events like charity runs or funerals where Warrior Brotherhood was one of several orgs that took part.[3][4]. The standard has not been met that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Dbratland (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find it hard to disagree. The article has had its chance. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable generic motorcycle club lacking WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. tedder (talk) 23:51, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30000 Island Air

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

Non-notable company. E. Fokker (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what to make of this one. Yes it was only a small charter airline, but I did find some interesting articles/incidents about the airline. See here and here. I'm not an expert at what these decisions mean, but if the paint one in any way set a precedence that should be grounds for keep in my mind. Ravendrop (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 gnews hits means it fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is coverage in the [Thinking+Big&pqatl=google Toronto Star]; although behind a pay-wall, the airline and its founder are the primary subjects. But aside from that one article, there is no other significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 10 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 (G11) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua McNemar

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

Autobiography of non-notable state political appointee, recreated in longer form after speedy and warning about COI policy. No third party reliable sources. Political appointment is "Disaster Recovery Specialist for the State of Louisiana, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness," so not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Zachlipton (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Concur with nominator. The subject was created by User talk:Mcnemar, a user with two edits, only to (his) this article. Soewinhan (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Written by the subject and very promotional in nature. I concur with the above and in addition, being purely promotion, I think it qualifies for a Speedy delete as spam and I will tag it accordingly. Safiel (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My quick read was that the article, while very much deletion-worthy, had enough of a claim of notability to preclude speedy. The user has previously recreated the article after speedy, so I figured there was no point in a PROD, hence this AfD. Zachlipton (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would not be deletable under A7 to be sure. But I think it does qualify under G11. It is written to promote the subject and would require a complete rewrite to make it encyclopedic. I think that qualifies it under G11. Worth a try, anyhow. Safiel (talk) 23:48, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mastersourcing

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

Neologism. Term only has a few hundred hits on Google, none of them relevant except for this article. No assertion of notability and no third party reliable coverage. Author removed a PROD, so here we are... Zachlipton (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A neologism invented purely for promotional purposes: not really distinguishable from outsourcing except to "evoke" a claim to "master" status, which makes our brand better than theirs: A variation of the term outsourcing, Mastersourcing can be defined as the transfer of the development and production of highly-specialized, mission- and performance-critical, low-volume products and solutions to an external provider. The concept – a supplier that has reached a master level – evokes “master plumber” or similar: masterpiece, master’s degree, masterwork, and mastermind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. .Valid term. Think crowdsourcing- it was a newer word that became used by many people and is now common. Also see multisourcing & nearshoring Wiki entries for reference and validity. In reference to the brand comment above- there is no mention of a brand in the text, and furthermore, it doesn't even allude to a brand or a specific industry for that matter. The whole concept of the text is to explain why it is different that outsourcing per the first part of the comment- nothing to really distinguish from outsourcing. It is a term that is being used in business discussions and is becoming more commonplace- as it is a newer term that is primarily being spoken about, not a lot of Google entries will come up- the very purpose of creating the Wikipedia article is that people are hearing the term and are curious about it and want to know more about what it means... wasn't that why Wikipedia was created in the first place? And now a word/entry is being proposed for deletion because there aren't enough Google hits on it and its a new idea? Seems to go against the principle to me
- Note that this user is the author of the article. Your argument seems to ignore our policies about neologisms (WP:NEO). That policy states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." I see no assertion in this article that the term is in wide use, or really that it has any use outside of a small group of people. A Google search for "Mastersourcing" or "Mastersource" turns up literally 0 hits that are at all relevant to the topic outside of the wikipedia entry itself. This is an extremely strong sign that the term does not have wide use, let alone discussion in secondary sources. Even if the term is primarily spoken, certainly there would be at least some instances of it in print if it was in wide use? You are welcome to promote whatever terminology you want on your own website, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: subjects must meet our notability standards to be included. This generally means that the topic needs to be the subject of substantial coverage in third party reliable sources. If you have citations to such coverage of the term "Mastersourcing", we'd all be happy to take a look at it and reconsider, but without any evidence of notability, this article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Zachlipton (talk) 21:14, 13 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 consensus is keep--whether to retitle or even divide needs to be discussed, but should be discussed on the talk p. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel

Note to closing admin: the title when the article was created and nominated for deletion was Mossad shark and Zionist vulture. Mbz1 moved it to Conspiracy theories involving Israel then to Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel on January 7. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Further note: The article was moved to Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories by Neptune 123 on January 11. u n☯mi 10:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two half-baked news-stories, "cooked" into one "article"? This is simply not encyclopedic. (Nice pictures, though!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The editors who created this page clearly did so for POV reasons, in an attempt to disparage the countries involved; hence, this page fails WP:ATTACK. Additionally, the topics strike me as barely WP:NOTABLE at best. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as one stated here: [5]: ""Mossad shark and Zionist vulture" sounds like a great idea for a webcomic, not the name of an encyclopedia article." Huldra (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At Talk:2010_Sharm_el-Sheikh_shark_attacks the 'conspiracy angle' attributed to the governor was shown to be one throwaway remark on live television that was used by sensationalist media. The article is a mishmash of information that is largely not notable. u n☯mi 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article definitely needs some work (and a new title), but the subject of (alleged) Israeli Animal use in Espionage does appear to me to have received reliable source coverage: [6] [7] [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrsdogg (talk • contribs)

Just so this is clear: Two blurb articles and a tongue-in-cheek op-ed substantiates an entire article about animal-based conspiracy theories? You would agree that twenty news agencies all reporting the same thing does not mean there's 20 reliable sources for an article... right? Bulldog123 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there has been more than just a couple blurb articles and an op-ed at this point. This article and this article seem to be fairly significant news articles about the topic. You may say that they are intended to be humorous, but it appears to me that these are in a different category than, say, a Dave Barry column. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd say the arrest of the vulture is an event, right? Where is the WP:INDEPTH coverage, and what is the lasting WP:EFFECT? The only places that connect the vulture and the shark story are op-ed pages doing it - mostly - for giggles. Which is the only reason there's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - unless they arrest a squirrel next. Problem is, this very article is treating it like an academic discussion... which it's not and never has been. It's clear as day this was made for WP:POV... maybe WP:POINTish motivations. Bulldog123 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the vulture story is not itself deserving of an article, so we do have common ground there. I think that the subject of "accusations of Israeli animal use in espionage" (which might make a good title for the article) in general has itself received some news coverage (and as you mention, a ton of op-eds) and is notable enough for an article. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a combination of 2 events, neither of which is particularly notable, being used in a slanted article. Prodego ^talk 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low notability sensationalist POV nonsense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, well sourced article.Each and every used source is a reliable one. I did not combine the events in the article myself. All the sources have them combined already.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations Keep - the event is verifiable, well-sourced, and Reliably sourced. ~~However I believe that the event is better off covered under the List article, as opposed to being a stand-alone article~~ (I also would be interested in seeing how many 'Delete' votes would be 'Keep' if the "[country] being disparaged" was Israel, but that's another kettle o' gefilte fish...). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article is well sourced. Although each event might be not notable by itself, the combination of all of them together, and a tendency of creating wacky conspiracy theories against Israel in Arab countries is notable and is discussed in all the sources. The only reason the article was nominated for deletion is I just do not like it, and this reason is not good enough to delete the article. Broccolo (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is title is clearly wrong and should be renamed something along the lines of "Mossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories." This subject -- accusations of Israel making use of animals for malicious purposes - is, as a whole, covered by a variety of reliable sources. If somebody here can't deny that, then the subject clearly merits an article. And I would like protest the gross personal attack and lack of good faith demonstrated on the part of NickCT. As Broccolo says, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that "animal use conspiracy theories" are a notable subdivision of "Mossad/Israel conspiracy theories" - the article's a loosely related collection of news pieces. I like Off2riorob's description of the article as "POV nonsense." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per The Bushranger, but without leaving a redirect. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand scope per cmadler. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories" or some other more NPOV title, and treat it as a spin-off of List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. But the present title, while hilarious, should not exist. cmadler (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep renamed article. My concern was with the article title, and that has been addressed. cmadler (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need to expose this use of animal allies. Umm...I like the title too. It's a lot pithier than conspiracy theory, blabla. And also more neutral. It leaves open the possiblity that the animals are collaboraters.TCO (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: The two incidents have been linked by quite a few reliable sources as a simple search of google news for "mossad shark vulture" will show. I agree it needs a better name, which should include other such theories. For example, this notes that Mossad has also been accused of infecting mosquitos with HIV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename or merge: I don't see all the POV people are talking about, and personally thought it was a fun read. Arguments on the N basis also fail my smell test, Washington, Huffington and the BBC -- good enough for me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to ask everybody, who votes for renaming the article, please come up with a good name. No matter what will happen to this deletion request the article could be renamed right now. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not as catchy as Mossad shark and Zionist vulture (or Mossad spark and Zionist culture), but how about List of conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations or Conspiracy theories in Arab–Israeli relations? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as has been noted above: most about the "Mossad shark" is already (or should be) in the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks-article. If we aim for 5000 trillion articles on wikipedia, then we can always have an article on the "Zionist vultures conspiracy". Sigh. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alleged Zionist Plots could host these two and much more (naturally, we'd need redirects from Mossad shark, Zionist vulture, Settler rats and Jewish pigs). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories or similar sounds good to me.Ekem (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret operations by Israili animals (would cover both espionage and attack uses) P.s. I've seen the US marine mammels in action. Stunning. Been walking down a dock and had one of those things go clear from pen to pen right over my head, from out of nowhere. Stunning. Really nifty what those things can do.TCO (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only name worthy of this non encyclopedia twaddle is , redlink deleted - the title suggested by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, such as jewish pigs - think yourself lucky I have no authority here or you wouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Reappropriation.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I'm confused by the bad grammar, but did user Off2riorob just call a group o users Jewish pigs and suggest they have no right to edit in this topic area? 74.198.9.183 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources means it's notable, the depth of coverage provides sufficient information for a stand-alone article, and the article does a good job of explaining the cultural context and ongoing impact. As much as I love the article title I agree it should probably be renamed, but renaming discussion can happen through the talk page, not AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. The current title is too weird for anyone to look for, yet too narrow to allow the addition of similar events. Will Beback talk 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. This article is a conflation of two events without any direct relation between them, and they belong in a wider list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)

Comment It's not a "conflation" of two unrelated events (i.e. WP:SYNTH). Several reputable sources have linked these stories together as a notable trend. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content could be merged (without a redirect) into a new article about Animals in espionage, so long as the Mossad shark material doesn't overwhelm it. Or to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. Also, I hope the author will be asked not to create any more non-encyclopedic articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were "non-encyclopedic" it would have been speedy deleted, and you SM would not have been proposing to merge any content of it to other articles. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of conspiracy theories#Arab-Israeli relations. Listing the two conspiracy theories involving Arab-Israeli relations in that list makes sense to me.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot understand how an article could be merged in a list. It will be undue weight I believe. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the 'Mossad shark' conspiracy theory is already adequately covered at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory. It doesn't need its own article as well, which links it together with other dubious allegations. While I accept there is a broader story here - evidently, the idea that Israel is using animals to spy on/attack Arab countries has caught on in certain areas - I'm not convinced it's a notable one. The coverage to me seems like the standard 'news of the weird' kind you get around this time of year; I don't see much serious assessment of this phenomenon in a way which would indicate long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wish you were right, but I am afraid you are not. It (I mean conspiracy theories) are not going away any time soon. Tonight I found this site that supposedly is here "To advocate peaceful reform in the Muslim world based on democracy and human rights and to offer practical strategies for such change". The article named "Epistemology to the Muslim World" says: "Abu Toameh may not have considered the possibility that Israel’s infamous spy agency, Mossad, had found a way to train rats to infest only gentiles. There is now evidence that the Mossad has adapted this technique for use with sharks. Earlier this month at least two sharks attacked five European tourists off Sharm al-Sheik, Egypt, killing one. No Israeli swimmers were targeted by the sharks. According to the governor of Southern Sinai, Abed Al-Fadij, “We must not discount the possibility that Mossad threw the shark into the sea, in order to attack tourists who are having fun in Sharm al-Sheikh. Mossad is trying to hurt Egyptian tourism in any way possible, and the shark is one way for it to realize its plan.” and continues: "There are laughs aplenty to be found in such stories, but in the end they are quite chilling." http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_news.php?main_id=13932 . So as you see the Muslims themselves are concerned about the problem. No, those conspiracy theories are not going away. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article you are quoting is not, as you say, from "the Muslims themselves", but is a copy of blog post [9] from a self-styled "neocon" on a U.S.-based website generally supportive of U.S. foreign policy. --NSH001 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given how this article has expanded and developed since my first comment, giving more illustration of long-term notability, I've changed my opinion to Keep. Robofish (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if this is kept, it definitely belongs on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. :) Robofish (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ossad Animal Use Conspiracy Theories. There seems to be enough RS to keep this one alive. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I moved the article to Conspiracy theories involving Israel. I believe this name is better than suggested Arab-Israeli conspiracy theories because even now the article has information about conspiracy theories of Iran that is not an Arab country. Later on a new theories that do not involved Arab countries could be added to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you haven't substantially altered any of the article's content - it's still a string of only loosely related news pieces. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well those "loosely related news" as you call them were not related by me, you know. They were related by BBC, Fox News,Haaretz and dozens more reliable sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I cannot see any valid policy based reason for deletion, the topic is well sourced and notable. Marokwitz (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per refs reflecting notability. Whether it should be renamed, and whether the scope should preferably be expanded, are not IMHO the issue we are !voting are here -- those are proper subjects for discussion on the article's talk page (when and if the article is kept). That is not to say that they are not possibly thoughts with legs ... just that this is not the place to determine whether they should be accepted, just whether the article should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. As a bonus, this can be a single merge destination for any and all other future articles involving allegedly Mossad-trained animals, allowing interested editors to keep that single article neutral and well-focused. (The name still needs work, but that discussion is not for here.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a linguistic shame that we lost the cute dual superhero title. that said, I would restrict the content to animal theories. That's what makes it interesting and really would be undue weight if scope is broadened to a general treatment of the conspiracy theories (which could verge from the more absurd to even correct suspicsions of Mossad operations). So I bet the 9-11 stuff is covered fine on some other page and more appropriate there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)
delete A propaganda piece which attempts, through highly selective quotation, to paint a false and misleading view of its subject. The shark attack part has already been dealt with at 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory. It doesn't need a separate article of its own. The vulture part is of similarly low encyclopedic value, and linking the two together is a piece of synthesis, not allowed in the encyclopedia. While the organisations used for sourcing are generally reliable, these items are really just pieces of trivia, there for a bit of humorous entertainment and not worthy of notability. They might belong in "trivia" sections of articles, but such sections are also discouraged here. --NSH001 (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's not prohibited synthesis when it's the Washington Post and the Toronto Star (among others cited in the article) making these comparisons, linking the events together. - Dravecky (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH linking unrelated conspiracy theories, each of them advanced only by a small number of people, and a striking violation of WP:NPOV. This is the third article Mbz1 created and put up for DYK in just the past month on the theme of murderous/stupid Muslims, the other two being When_we_die_as_martyrs and Flora_and_Maria.betsythedevine (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Changing !vote below to merge and striking this one. betsythedevine (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who read the article and its sources before making knee-jerking comments here at the afd would realize that this does not violate WP:SYNTH because the sources tie the two incidents together. The fact that Mbz1's articles are always put up for deletion (they rarely get deleted, btw) speaks more to the ridiculous attempts at censorship then bad article subjects. If anyone is interested in fighting the demonization of ethnic groups they may be interested in speaking up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel, where the article being discussed is the only article on Wikipedia dedicated to the criticism of a country, a country that already has abundant articles dedicated to its criticism.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I wrote about 60 articles from which 4 or 5 at the most were nominated on deletion, and only one was actually deleted, and another was merged. I could be mistaken by 1 or 2, but not more.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that tie these phenomena together are humor pieces whose authors are enjoying a good laugh at those stupid credulous critics of Israel, just as this article does. One would never guess the actual existence of military animals or the sophistication of modern spytechno reading their condescending mockery. The article's POV tone includes for example "Saudi Arabian authorities arrested what they described as a "Zionist" vulture and charged the bird with spying for Israel", sourced to a BBC article that describes Saudis as "detaining" the bird, not "arresting" or "charging" it. I am sure that Arab countries have their own anger-radio hosts just as the US does--and I am sure Israel too has the very same blowhards with opposite sign-- but not every nonsense idea mentioned by Glenn Beck deserves to be inflated into something generally believed within the USA. betsythedevine (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are humor pieces, but many of them are straight news pieces that tie these events together . The existence of military animals and the sophistication of modern spytechno has no more bearing on this article's notability than the exitence of controlled demolitions has on the notability of 9/11 Conspiracy theories. And if you're going to hinge your argument on the supposed difference between "detained" and "arrested", then it's worthwhile pointing out that the Washington Post article usese the term "arrested". Two for the show (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 edits before contributing to this AfD. Care to explain how you got here? Bulldog123 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Diehl's piece is not a Washington Post article, it is a humorous blogpost expressing his own POV. He also says "So Arab media and officials who rave about spying vultures and Mossad sharks deserve to be mocked." Not exactly an encyclopedia-quality source for factual information about any topic.betsythedevine (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia Arrests Vulture ... as Israeli Spy;Authorities in Saudi Arabia arrested a suspected Mossad spy when they captured a vulture.Residents and local reporters told Saudi Arabia's Al-Weeam newspaper that the matter seemed to be linked to a "Zionist plot" and swiftly alerted security services. The bird has since been placed under arrest.;True Story: Saudi Arabia "Arrests" Vulture on Suspicion of Being An Israeli Spy;The arrest of the vulture - whose identification code is R65 - comes several weeks after an Egyptian official voiced the suspicion that a shark that attacked tourists off the Sinai shore was also acting on behalf of Mossad.A vulture tagged by scientists at Tel Aviv University has strayed into Saudi Arabian territory, where it was promptly arrested on suspicion of being a Mossad spy;"A vulture tagged by Israeli scientists was "arrested" on suspicion of being a Mossad spy after "(Everywhere highlighted by me).--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not multiple independent quality sources of factual information, these are a bunch of light-reading pieces feeding off one another. Haaretz is the closest to WP:RS on the list and likely a source for the others--but if they really meant to state the bird was "arrested" it is surprising they do not expand on what would be a really startling and interesting event .. that a government treated a bird like a human criminal or spy, taking it into custody in order to place criminal charges against it. betsythedevine (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see The Daily Telegraph is not WP:RS. My bad.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph cites the Haaretz article; its wording "placed under arrest" is certainly not emphasized in such a way as to suggest the bird was really treated like a human criminal. betsythedevine (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the topic is notable (covered in-depth by numerous reliable secondary sources) and many of these sources directly link the incidents as a broader topic, therefore the accusations of WP:SYNTH don't hold. The title shouldn't be "Mossad shark and Zionist vulture" though. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk page consensus the title was changed to Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems adequately sourced and notable, though article has NPOV issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is interesting and well sourced subject. The nominator was unable to provide any reason for deletion. "Simply non-encyclopedic" is not a valid reason (it means merely "I do not like it").Biophys (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, the nominator has not actually articulated a reason for deletion that is rooted in policy. Other commenters who have argued "synth" clearly do not understand the Synth policy - it is not Synth when multiple reliable sources tie seperate incidents together and treat them as a phenomena. With the new name, I don't see anythign wrong with the article.Two for the show (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Two for the show (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep (or Merge into larger article on animals as spies). Just yesterday I heard on cable tv (RussiaToday maybe) someone debunking allegations that Israel had sent squirrels to Iran and the vulture in as spies. Listing WP:RS that debunking things that really are silly is a purpose of this encyclopedia, isn't it? I'm not saying the article may not need improvement in a number of ways but the topic is notable. (Of course, it might also be merged into the larger conspiracy article if the amount of material is WP:Undue.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 1/9/11 Fareed Zakaria mentioned the incident. On the other hand remember there have been lots of stories about military technologists trying to get little cameras on flies or bees or whatever for spy purposes, so there is some grain of truth in the conspiracy theories, as there is in many. So just bringing out the facts is useful for showing evolution of such theories and debunking the obviously paranoid or fabriced ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Another story on Russia Today about a variety of ways animals have been used as detectors and even spies. (The Russian cat that immediately got hit by a car.) Dophins by USA, etc. Maybe the info should be Merged into larger article on animals as spies - as I changed my "vote" to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a US spy kitty that got hit by a taxi? betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that as well. Bulldog123 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all the reasons the four people above me said. Passionless (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Firstly; Mbz1 (talk) has forgotten to tell us that s/he started an article a month ago called Egyptian shark attacks conspiracy theory. This was voted to be merged into 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks. (See link above). Now the theories are rehashed...but no link to the main story! I repeat: the shark-part belongs in the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks-article.
Secondly, about the "Mossad vultures": As one who has grown up with HC Andersen´s lovely stories, I am quite familiar with how one little feather can become five hens...or should a say a Mossad vulture spy.
Lets see how this started: 1 -one- report in "a Saudi newspaper" al-Weeam (which I have never heard of, and is certainly not in List of newspapers in Saudi Arabia, ...though there is a website by that name registered in SA).
According to the story "residents and local reporters told Saudi Arabia's Al-Weeam newspaper that the matter seemed to be a "Zionist plot." The accusations went viral, with hundreds of posts on Arabic-language websites and forums"
Who say it has gone viral? The Israeli newspapers Maariv (who first reported it), then translated into English by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. And from there copied to the rest of the world. (As anyone with 2 cent knowledge of news/newspapers know: there is always room for a good animal story!)
And not a single Saudi official is quoted or named in this story.

I have been searching the net for this "gone viral" (I have followed Arab, including Saudi-Arab bloggers for several years now, on and off.) Guess what? I find no, not a single trace of it going "viral" in the Arab world. (Of course, if I could write Arabic, and was set on demonizing the Arab world, I could easily post "hundreds of posts on Arabic-language websites and forums" "believing" the story...Just saying´.)

But.... it has "gone viral" on anti-Arab sites, where the "story" shows a very nice progression. It is now "Saudi Arabian security forces have arrested a Mossad vulture...etc.

To quote HC Andersen: " Such stories should not be hushed up.... And it got to the newspapers, and it was printed. And it is quite true. One little feather may grow till it becomes five hens."
We should update Andersen: ""Such stories should not be hushed up.... And it got to wikipedia, and it was printed. And it is quite true. One little feather may grow till it becomes five Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel." (I´ll take the rats & boars later; I´ve had enough of wading through garbage for tonight) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment. One could still have a justification for keeping it as a meme. Although I do get how this thing gets a lot of play because of the funniness and that might dramatize the event itself. Not to get too meta, but we could write a story about how it blew up. And I'm not sure how we do that really (even if valid) given the RSes are not turning the eye inwared. I guess you could blog on it somewhere. Plus of course, we here drive the blowing up. That said, I really love the original title and just the whole article. TCO (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason to delete under Wikipedia policy? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACK, WP:NOTABLE (and possibly WP:SYNTH for the rats and boars) . If we had a WP:5 hens from one feather, I would would use that, too. Cheers. Huldra (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thnx. The refs & content demonstrate notability and I don't see the others applying. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)How is this WP:ATTACK, other than the fact you don't like it? It certainly passes WP:N since it's been covered by quite a few reliable sources (your personal investigations into its origins notwithstanding). As for the SYNTH, if you think parts of it are synthesis you can bring that up on the article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Huldra, is this too much to ask you to assume good faith and stop making ungrounded accusations? Yes, I wrote a big article about shark attack conspiracy theory that was merged to other article, but where and why I should have mentioned about this merged article? I did not re-write it, but included a 1% of it as a subsection in this article. Now, why are you claiming the story was fist reported by Israeli newspapers Maariv This source as well as a few other cites Saudi newspaper Al Weeam. The only reason to delete this article is I just don't like it. Please take a look at this site that I translated from Arabic using Google translate. Here's one more Arabic language site that cites as their source Saudi paper HarmonyAny more questions? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra seems quite eloquently correct and I thank him for his amusing comments, its a children story with a massive anti Jew position. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar context exists for the shark story, as was shown here and here. The resident editors seem opposed to clarifying the context. u n☯mi 08:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attack article created by editor with history in this area. A matter of failing synth and undue weight for starters (both the shark and the vulture thing were far from ever being widely believed -- they were played for laughs, however, about the "stupid arabs."). There is far too much commitment to denigrating others with weak sourcing and that needs to stop. Probably an RFC on the matter will be needed.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced notable article. I don't see any valid reason for deletion. --Neptune 123 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge relevant material to military animals) per NickCT and Bali_ultimate. More wiki-garbage that needs to be cleaned up. Being "well-sourced" does not immediately qualify the article as a keep. Bulldog123 22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are reliable and independent, and they provide significant coverage, then yes, well-sourced usually is the same thing as notable. If you want to cite one of the exceptions to WP:N, such as, say, WP:NOT#NEWS, would you care to do so, and explain why you feel it's applicable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to not hound my contributions? Any serious discussion with you has proven to be fruitless, so sorry, I don't consider your chime-ins worth responding to anymore. Thanks. Bye. Bulldog123 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I was here on 6 January, three days before you, but I'm conscious that it would be ridiculous to use the same logic to accuse you of hounding me. The reality is I'm a prolific contributor to AfD generally and the likelihood is we'll regularly meet on the same debates. I make no apologies for challenging bad arguments, and I happily take your comments above as a concession that you have no policy-based defence of your argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply to your "keep" !vote with nonsense. You, however, did reply to my !delete vote with nonsense. Pretty sure it's obvious who's trying to pick a fight here. If you wanted to engage in serious encyclopedia-building discussion, you had your opportunity on my talk page earlier last month. Also, over a month and you've made none of the suggested changes (yes, you made suggestions) to any of the actors lists. Sorry, I don't take your comments seriously anymore. "Well-sourced is not the same thing as notable." is in reference to the numerous "Keep it's sourced." votes. That's it. Bulldog123 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what part of my comment was "nonsense". I'm assuming you're using it in the sense of "valid content that Bulldog123 doesn't agree with", in much the same way as you use the words "garbage" and "rubbish". The last time I interacted with you was a series of attempts to offer my assistance in improving articles that you were unhappy with, and your reply was that you definitely weren't interested in that help and would prefer not to interact with me (relevant portion of that very long edit is the last two sentences); I've accordingly avoided those articles. It's sad to find that this was the Wikipedia-equivalent of pulling my pigtails, and it was secret code for actually wanting my help, but I'm now heavily engaged in improving several other articles and would prefer to focus on those. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you're trying to start a debate about whether "having verifiable sources equals notability." You want to talk about religion and politics too? Point is: we're not gonna get anywhere. You're just nitpicking one tangential remark I made... paying no attention to the other !delete voters. The crux of the !vote is "per NickCT and bali_ultimate" ... hence why we use "pers" in AfDs... sometimes other users already said all there is to say. If by offering help, you're referring to this post... I didn't respond because the AfDs hadn't even closed, and because - as I had explained - there is no way to improve those specific articles. Not because I was giving you the cold shoulder. Anyway, off topic... I don't want to hijack any more AfDs. Bulldog123 01:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my rationale above... in case it was misleading. Bulldog123 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. NickCT and BaliUltimate made a WP:ATTACK argument (page is primarily an attack page) without arguing whyWP:ATTACK applies to this page or, indeed, who the page is attacking (I'm certainly unclear myself). So what I'm saying is you haven't made a policy-based argument in as much as you've similarly avoided explaining how the cited policy applies to this article. This is the reason that "per" arguments are normally a bad idea except in cases where the person you're supporting has delivered a well-explained and unambiguous argument. WP:ATTACK is possibly a relevant argument, so it would benefit from your further elaboration. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACK is given... WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and the WP:OR-violations stemming from WP:SYNTH are all policy-based violations... but that's been drilled to death above me so I don't know why you're forcing me to re-hash it. This gets minimal coverage in news (often only in gag-related editorials: [10]) and no coverage in academia. Hiccup Girl gets more coverage than this and she's nothing but a side-note on hiccups. Also, see what I mean by nit-picking? You're not jumping all over User:Passionless for his contribution: "For all the reasons the four people above me said." Bulldog123 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passionless is a new user with an obviously poor argument, and despite the fact that I happen to want a Keep outcome myself, I doubt that the admins are going to take Passionless' comment as being a strong basis for that result. Your arguments, on the other hand, are certainly capable of being strong and policy based, even if they don't always rise to that potential, and so it's worth taking the time to separate out the knee-jerks from the genuinely useful contributions. Plus my experience is that when you're pressed you sometimes come up with better arguments than your initial one, which benefits the project generally. WP:UNDUE is a much better argument than WP:ATTACK here and while I don't agree that it applies (again, it's not clear what, exactly, is receiving the undue emphasis to the detriment of our NPOV) it's probably something that the closing admin should consider. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bulldog's arguments are not strong, they look more like trolling. No policy was violated in the article, and about news coverage, well it depends on the search criteria,and of course there was coverage in New York Times as well. I do hope that the closing administrator will not be intimidated by absolutely unwarranted claims about the policy violations. There was none, and by request I could provide explanations why no policy were violated. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, these are not solely my arguments. I'm not making any new arguments about why this article is a joke. Everything of value has been said above. If I could redirect to something new like WP:GOMAKEFUNOFMUSLIMSSOMEWHEREELSE, I would. Incidentally, most of the op-ed articles that undergird its very existence do treat it like a joke... literally. Bulldog123 06:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "coverage in the New York Times" when opinion columnist Roger Cohen writes about "The Captive Arab Mind" and mentions the shark-attack theory as an illustration of idiot conspiracy theories. Editorials and op-eds are entitled to push POV, Wikipedia articles are not. Wikipedia already has an article about the shark attacks, also co-created by Mbz1 (or at least the conspiracy part of the article was created by Mbz1); what I don't see in that NYT op-ed is any support for THIS article currently being discussed for AfD. Cohen says nothing about generalized animal conspiracy theories. betsythedevine (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, that was an op-ed piece in the New York Times, although there have been other news articles focused on "generalized animal conspiracy theories" about Israel. [11] Qrsdogg (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1's claim, to which I was replying, was that news mentions of the shark attack theory (the subject of a completely different DYK-nominated Wikipedia article by her) support the notability of THIS article, and that one oped mention in the NYT of shark attacks constituted "coverage in the New York Times" of the subject of THIS article. The subject of this article, as Qrsdogg accurately notes, is "generalized animal conspiracy theories." I am now looking at the one article in The Australian used to evince news articles in general. It is clearly another opinion piece not WP:RS for factual material. Even its first sentence is contrafactual -- "FIRST there was the killer shark that Egypt said Mossad had dropped in its coastal waters to scare off tourists from its Red Sea resorts." There was one Egyptian official who did not immediately contradict a suggestion that Israel had caused shark attacks, not any general official statement by Egypt. If the first sentence of the article is a lie, what does that say for the rest of it? betsythedevine (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not like with the wording of one of the sentences in the article (I suppose it should have been worded better), I certainly disagree with your characterization of this article as a non-RS opinion piece. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Conspiracy theory: "Conspiracy theory was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.[1] However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." This article is not about animals conspiring in secret, it is about various theories that Israel's government agencies have secretly used animals to attack targets in other countries. I hope someone can suggest a title that is more accurate and less pejorative. betsythedevine (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --tomascastelazo (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckling) - A concise argument if nothing else. This user's contrib history is a little curious. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's contribution history reminds me of comets. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure User:Mbz1's participation here and here is just coincidence. Or that User:tomascastelazo uploaded this obscure and unused photograph, which Mbz1 then comically captioned and uploaded to her personal image database. Also some pretty maddening coincidence. Oh, and did I forget to mention this: User_talk:Tomascastelazo#IP_block. Interesting use of open proxies to edit. Bulldog123 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well... to answer some of the critics of my eloquent "keep". enough has been said and the reasons for my opinion are already encapsulated in the discussion, so I feel it is pointless to be redundant. Whether I am a comet or not is irrelevant, for there are so many comets in so many discussions, and my vote as a wikiuser is just as legitimate as the diehards. Mbz1 and I are wikifriends from Commons and my support of her is well known in that community, we happen to share common interests and ideas, just like everyone else. She has a right to have friends, doesn´t she? And as to my obscured photograph, there is nothing obscure about it, nor my participation in many discussions about photography and other issues in Commons. What I find interesting is that the least representative participation was intentionally searched and found, for there is always one the falls into that category. To get there, a lot of others were passed over. And as far as my IP address, the issue was a technical one that I am sure lies somewhere deep in the wikifiles, and since Bull is such an astute detective, I am pretty sure he can find the reason why, and at the same time discover that it had nothing to do with any confrontation or behavior on my part. Regards. --tomascastelazo (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Wiki-friends. So you admit Mbz1 called you over to support her article at AfD? Or you just happen to stumble upon it at just the right time? Oh, and typically... open proxies are used to hide real IP addresses. Which was my point. Bulldog123 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Dear Bulldog, I never said she called me over, that is your assumption, and I can suppose one in bad faith. I would suggest that if you have a problem with Mbz1 you keep it there and not spill it over to other bystanders who happen to not agree with you. So substantiate your claims or shut up. Stick to the discussion at hand. --tomascastelazo (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced, notable and very interesting article for me. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably needs a new title. The actual incidents are for the most part ludicrous, but they seem to be covered. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli animal spy conspiracy theory? --Neptune 123 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. At present it suggests the animals are conspiring... Peridon (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic and useful encyclopedic article. The article content itself shows quite well that the topic became notable in the recent years, and it's not just a minor-viewpoint peculiarity. The article is very encyclopedic: it combines information from different sources and gives excellent overview with references. This is exactly what you see in encyclopedias, including traditional ones. Akinoame (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Akinoame (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Looks like we're starting to get a comic amount of WP:DUCK sock/meatpuppets. Bulldog123 18:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog123, thanks for your "friendly" analysis. Not clear the reason: I tried to explain, not only to state opinion. I happen to have quite a lot of experience editing a 5000 page encyclopedia of sciences, so I thought I could contribute a bit to this discussion. Although I certainly understand your suspicion regarding SPA, I indeed made only a few mostly small contributions since the first one in 2006, only to the topics of: software, camera hardware, Nobel prize, music, computer algorithm, Chinese culture, and recently to Israeli towns. Akinoame (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make it three SPAs so far - that's not bad compared with some. That was only a quick look, though. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a topic as obscure and as unimportant as this one... that's pretty bad. You'd expect the SPAs to be delete-voters given the content. Bulldog123 19:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens sometimes that a confirmed sock has been advocating delete when all the others have !voted keep. I spend a fair amount of time in AfD, and I've found myself getting quite fond of some of the better socks. One can be fond of an adversary... Peridon (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckling) Fond of the sock puppets? Just don't feed them or else they'll congregate. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I am not surprised by bulldog comments. I mean after that and after that ..., but you, nick, why don't you turn on your brain and do not ask yourself why anybody would want to use sock or meta puppets to make "keep" vote, if there are two times more keep votes versus delete votes anyway? bulldog made one more conspiracy theory out of the DR for the article about conspiracy theories. It would have been funny, if it was not so sad.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because those SPAs understand the weakness of all the !keep arguments here (AKA: It's sourced, so keep it). Adding quantity to quality assures a "no consensus" close. Also because some of your cohorts aren't the sharpest tools in the shed (sadly). Or maybe it's just all coincidence that nearly every AfD you feel passionate about is overrun by SPAs and small-time I/P users who never engage in deletion debates. You want to tell me you honestly don't know who User:Two for the show is with a straight face? Bulldog123 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Mbz1. You've lost me slightly. I wasn't actually accusing anyone of socking. Merely laughing a Peridon's comment. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(restarting indents and hopefully restarting discussion of the article in question) How about merging a cleaned up NPOV version to a subsection of Mossad, "Alleged use of animals"? betsythedevine (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no harm in having "Alleged use of animals" section in Mossad article. It appears at this stage that article enjoyed a lot of attention lately, many editors contributed, it is definitely not a stub now. Naturally more work is needed, the article is not WP:FA quality yet, more review is needed. I guess what I'm trying to say is per WP:SUMMARIZE, we could have this article lede, to start up Mossad article section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support betsythedevine's suggestion. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support that. Bulldog123 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really constructive of you, Nick. Currently Mossad is organized by geographical ___location of alleged operation, how should we approach this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in addition to the section organized by geographical ___location, it would be useful to have a section organized by types of operations, "Alleged methods used by Mossad." Then as sub-sections "Rescue operations", "Espionage", etc. and "Alleged use of animals" would be one of those sections? betsythedevine (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd suggestion! Not to say that rats and wild boars conspiracy theories have nothing to do with Mossad, (I mean nobody claimed those anti-Arab rats and anti-Arab boars were released by Mossad), but Mossad itself has nothing to do with any of those conspiracy theories at all. Adding any of this staff to Mossad article will only make those conspiracy theories look like they have at least some legitimacy in them.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it strike you as POV to call the theories "conspiracy theories" and to insist that the article make the point they have no legitimacy? Maybe a title like "Stupid paranoid Arab fantasies about animals" would express your POV more clearly than trying to put these different events in context with actual secret activities that sovereign governments, not just Israel, do carry out against their enemies. The Bulgarian umbrella -- the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive tea and the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin--any of these would sound like utter "conspiracy theory" and were denounced as sheer fantasy by those who actually carried them out. The fact is, the incidents grouped by this article don't have a natural connection to one another except in that all are unlikely-sounding stories about animals and Israel. Perhaps your rats and boars could go into a subsection of Israeli_settlement#Incidents_of_conflict; Mossad was specifically mentioned in connection with the sharks and vulture. betsythedevine (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories. So do most people who understand that a GPS bracelet on a vulture's leg or on a shark is not used to control the animal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with "conspiracy theories" in the title. However, if that's a problem, it could be renamed Allegations of animals spying for Israel. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the thing is that from all animals that got their own subsections in the article only the vulture was accused in spying.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no policy based argument for deletion. The article in question itself does have secondary sources indicating some measure of notability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA all seem to be part of policy or guidelines. Bulldog123 02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bulldog, I wonder, if somebody ever told you that no matter how many times you will repeat false claims they will not become more truthful from this repetition? I would really like to recommend you to save some energy for the deletion request of my next article :-), and maybe better yet you could consider writing some articles on your own just to add something useful to the only stub you created for your 5 years with wikipedia--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use wikipedia as a vehicle for agenda-oriented propaganda vs help delete said propaganda. It's pretty obvious who's doing the greater service here... if you want to get into that. Your recent contributions to DYK and the reasons behind them are clear as day. Bulldog123 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to re-read the talk to see where issues of WP:SYNTH in this article are described. Could anybody help me? I guess, the plan should be like this: (1) identify and list places where conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources is reached or implied; (2) change description so that only information from the sources is conveyed, not anything else. I guess, this will remove issue of WP:SYNTH, will it not? Akinoame (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the article fails to report objectively the sources? (As per WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA.) What sentences? Can we list and improve these places? Akinoame (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think you've formally introduced yourself. Whose ~~sock~~ "friend" may you be? Bulldog123 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to file complaint if you believe in what you say. If you do not believe in what you say, you violate WP:BITE. Akinoame (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would file a complaint, but I can't because I don't know who you are or might be, and because I have reasonable doubt. I do, however, have enough common sense to know that IRL people don't randomly pop in and support arcane POV-laden wikipedia articles so vehemently. I'll ask again... whose sock are you? If you didn't double-vote on here (which, out of WP:AGF, I expect you didn't) then there's no reason you shouldn't link to your main account. If, as you seem to be implying, you are sporadic niche-editor with a bizarrely strong interest in this one specific article you never edited... then I'll have to ask whose "friend" you are and who called you over to participate in this AfD? Let me guess: you know Mbz1 from wikipedia commons? Once those questions are answered, we can continue. Bulldog123 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bulldog, just between the two of us, I am Wikipediholic with all the symptoms of the condition. "I even having conversations with my sock puppet on the talk pages " :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Mbz1, but I highly doubt you are crafty enough to maintain a sockpuppet. I doubt you personally ever sockpuppeted (could be wrong, but doubt it)... but you sure as hell know plenty of people who do... and as long as that adds another pseudo-supporter to sway consensus in your way, you're fine with it. Bulldog123 19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckling)-Come on Bull. That's mean. Sure Mbz is crafty enough. She's just to scrupulous to sock puppet. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I was not invited by anyone here; (2) I've never had a different account on Wikipedia; (3) the first time I met Mbz1 was reading this article. I happened to notice this topic in the news, came across the article and was impressed by the professionalism and coverage (unlike many stubs you see on Wikipedia). I learned a lot from this article (and not to support my political agenda - which is the default motivation for everyone, judging by your posts). Then I noticed it is going to be deleted, which seemed strange. That's how I came here. I feel strange explaining this to you: I understand you should have assumed something like this yourself -- instead of what you apparently assumed. I read in the policy that SPA is a valid concern when a user exhibits destructive behavior. Did I? (Or others you tagged with SPA?) Akinoame (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:SYNTH you may read the talk page of the article that explains why there's no WP:SYNTH. About WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA in connection to the article there is really nothing to discuss.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, thanks. My questions are aimed to try to understand what Bullfrog123 is referring to, specifically. Akinoame (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck with that :-) I personally gave up on trying to understand trolling--Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog reporting in. Everything in Wikipedia:Notability (events) (WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, etc...) suggests "Israeli animal espionage" is not thorough enough (read: not thorough at all) to qualify for an independent article. Someone above suggested the shark story be merged into Mossad, which seems reasonable... since the topic of focus here is not the shark but Mossad's alleged use of a shark. The vulture is flat-out non-notable as an individual entity, and only used in the same sentence as the shark in tongue-in-cheek op-eds and "related story" blurbs... same with all the other accusations of "animal espionage." (squirrels, pelicans, what have you). The rat and boar stuff looks like complete WP:SYNTH. That we're merging all these stories into one... suggesting there actually is an animal-related conspiracy theory in discussion somewhere (when there is no evidence of that) is WP:SYNTH. Why that last part confuses anyone... I don't know. It's been hammered to death above me. Bulldog123 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you you need some rest. See, you even called yourself "Bullfrog" instead of "bulldog" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If merging the shark story to Mossad doesn't support your agenda, what's wrong with merging to a bigger article about animal-related conspiracy theories? As pointed out, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Israel. Bulldog123 06:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there is such article about animal-related conspiracy theories? I do not see one.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when stuff isn't on wikipedia yet, people write it. Are you suggesting you are incapable of writing an article that isn't somehow related to Israel anymore? Your first edits on here seemed to be about useful stuff... not just Israel-defense-team-related. Plus, you seem to be very adept at creating ~~manufactured~~ spontaneous editing partnerships. [12]. Such an article shouldn't take longer than an hour to write. Certainly less time than we're all spending here. Another option is to add a new section to military animal about conspiracy theories involving animals or "animal spies." You could redirect Mossad shark or Zionist vulture to go to that section. But that would probably ruin the whole agenda-thing you got going here. Bulldog123 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear bulldog, I am capable of writing on many subjects. The question is, if you are capable of writing anything but trolling. Are you? About a new article you proposed. If I am to write it, you'll be the first one to scream out: WP:Synth because there are hardly any sources that link all animal conspiracy theories in the way they are linked in relation to Israel--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it wouldn't be WP:SYNTH because a general topic is a general topic. Just like military animals is a general topic -- there doesn't need to be a source linking the rats from Wanted (film) with Russian carrier dogs. However, this article intentionally puts together all these alleged military animals - Mossad shark, zionist vulture, yarmulke hippo - like they're part of one general conspiracy widely believed by some Arab groups. You wrote it that way. Having it as a separate article suggests the existence of a broader conspiracy theory as well. Truth is, these are fleeting news blurbs that are not going to get WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. They're good laughs... just like Romanian witches forced to pay income tax. The reason these are so widespread is because its more ammunition for anti-Muslim sentiment -- (A.K.A. Look how stupid and paranoid they are, hahaha!). You keep linking to new articles, but that's just various agencies reporting the same thing in slightly different ways. It's not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Most importantly, there's no WP:INDEPTH coverage about a broader Animal conspiracy theory involving Israel. Maybe there will be... but I doubt it. Your best bet right now is to merge somewhere. Bulldog123 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Bulldog123 - I apologize for calling you a wrong nickname. No harm implied -- just too late in the night :) Second, where does the article say or imply about a single animal-related conspiracy theory - which you mention to support WP:SYNTH? Re-reading the article, I see overview of multiple individual theories, related by the subject (accusing Israel of using animals in the Arab-Israeli conflict). Where does it imply connection, or any single unified conspiracy theory as you say? Again, re-reading rats and boars section, where is there any implication or statement of a new (not sourced) conclusion? I see several reports, all of them sourced and independent. That people may think and make their own conclusions (each person a different one), but where does the article do this? So far the sections you mention look like an honest combination of information, without any new conclusions stated or implied. I would be glad if you quote specifically if you disagree. Akinoame (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog123, hi again. I am still missing your answer and quotes about WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA - i.e. where specifically does not the article report its sources objectively? I believe your answer will help a lot for either improving the article or for the deletion decision. Akinoame (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just moved the article to Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories per this discussion. --Neptune 123 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do any of the sources actuly call these conspiracis?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,here are only 2 examples: "Before the vulture, the latest such conspiracy theory surrounded a slew of shark attacks off Egypt's Red Sea coast last month. "; Conspiracy theories quickly began circulating in Saudi newspapers and on websites that the bird was involved in espionage.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anything not called a Conspiracy theory by RS should not be here. Its not up to wiki edds to decide what is and is not a Conspiracy theory. So in fact tehre are only 2 RS fpr this article. I think delete with the properly sourced materail moved to the approriate artciels.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only 2 RS. I provided example of only 2 RS. There are many more of the same even with the word "conspiracy" in titles "Conspiracy alert: Is Egypt's shark-attack crisis the work of Israel? "--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a good solution is to remove the information. If the theories cannot be reliably sourced to be called "conspiracies", the article name should change. "Use of animals in Arab-Israeli conflict" (not sure it won't be POV by giving undue legitimation to the claims, but just suggesting). This could include both confirmed use of animals (e.g., dogs to find mines, etc.) and unconfirmed, like these ones. The the reader will decide whether believe these are conspiracies or not (I think article gives very good job in reporting the sources completely and objectively). Akinoame (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this news article was just published on the subject by ABC yesterday. It refers to the Shark and Vulture stories as conspiracy theories, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a similar article treating them in more depth was just published today. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Just as many sovereign nations not just Israel have in the past used very weird-sounding methods to accomplish their goals, it is also true that many groups of people, not just Arabs, have blamed groups they saw as enemies for weird stuff. You and I might agree it's a "conspiracy theory" that AIDS was an anti-third-world plot; I would have been equally skeptical about the smallpox-on-Indian blankets legend, but that one turns out to have quite a solid basis. For that matter, I would have thought it unlikely that people are taught how to game Wikipedia articles to make them more pro-Israel but according to Haaretz that should not be pejoratively called a "conspiracy theory" since it is true. betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've chosen a bad example: it is hardly a conspiracy at all. Nobody tries to hide it, because it's a legitimate goal for them. If you read into the article, Yesha Council encourages people with Zionist views to write on Wikipedia in order to remove leftist point-of-view bias (they believe exists). One example of the article they wanted to write is about Jewish family (as opposed to modern separation of people). The campaign itself is not legitimate according Wikipedia policies, but it's legitimate for them. There are also reports of similar campaigns from the other side: here is review of both, here is another call to participate for anyone with Passion for Gaza. Akinoame (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the example I chose was a mistake, I was thinking of this story, which may have been distorted by the media. Of course I am not suggesting that it is illegitimate for people to want Wikipedia to reflect what they think is true,and I agree that anti-Israel people also try to influence articles. My point was simply that the expression "conspiracy theory" implies that a theory is false; when I first read that people were being told to game Wikipedia for their POV by complimenting 100 editors en route to gaining adminship--I could not believe that story could be true. But since "conspiracy theory" was already taken out of the article title, I will say no more about it except to thank the person who made the change. betsythedevine (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again to the question where the article belongs to. As discussed above, the article is not about Mossad or any other specific organization, so it does not belong there. I think, one topic it definitely belongs to, is Arab-Israeli relations. So a good thing would probably be a link or summary-type reference in a relevant article. An option would be to summarize+link in Arab-Israeli conflict, but would it not become WP:SYNTH (as this would imply that this is part of the conflict)? Is there an article about relations in general and not about the conflict? Another thing, as mentioned by Bulldog123, is conspiracy theories involving animals, but there does not seem to be an article on this (does it exist?). Akinoame (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I noticed it's not Arab-Israeli relations, its more Muslim countries-Israeli (ref. Iran). Or even: any countries associating themselves with the Arab/Muslim side in the conflict (regardless of the current relations with Israel, some have peace treaties, some are still at war). It seems that attributing the article to a larger topic may be synthesis or original research on its own right (as sources do not claim it). Akinoame (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another possibility would be to add a new section to Military animals on alleged use of animals for spying. This was Bulldog's suggestion above, and I think it's a good one. The stories about pigs and rats would be in a different place, to which they are much more relevant, Israeli_settlement#Incidents_of_conflict. As for the shark incident, that already has its own little solo article. Putting all these unrelated stories into one article is inappropriate for Wikipedia; the fact that several journalists have cobbled them together into opeds poking fun at stupid Muslim paranoia does not make it right for us to showcase the same POV in one of our articles. betsythedevine (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I just added two animal-spy allegations to Military_animal#Alleged_military_use_of_animals, one of them the vulture, the other a "spy pigeon" from Pakistan caught in India. I would have added the Sudan pelican story too but I could not find any actual news story about it, just a bunch of commentators throwing it into the vulture story as makeweight. betsythedevine (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the rats and boars are now also where they belong, in Israeli_settlement#Alleged_hostile_use_of_animals_by_settlers. betsythedevine (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote to reflect merge compromise. Bulldog123 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the discussion as to whether anyone would be interested in reading about an alleged use of a vulture (that fly as far as 150 kilometres (93 mi) from a nest site to find food) by Israel to spy on Saudi Arabia has now consumed over 11,500 characters, an equivalent of 27 A4 pages of text, i.e. 27 small articles not contributed to Wikipedia content. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you calculate that? That must be a very large font size! --Dweller (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' Amen to User:Koakhtzvigad for one of the wisest remarks in this thread! I would like to see the stories based on WP:RS put into existing articles -- stories that allege Israel used animals under Military animals or Criticism of Israel; stories that allege settlers used animals under Israeli settlement. As for the cited "references" that are humor pieces or editorials denouncing the paranoid fantasies of Israel's enemies or some combination thereof, I would like links to them removed. So I guess that makes my !vote a Merge, and I'll change it above. betsythedevine (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have noted the interjunction, it is a notable one. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the content into existing articles as suggested above. And will someone please explain to me how how this is anti-Jewish/Israeli when the Saudis come out of it looking like paranoid nutcases. Arresting a bird. Really! So if I write an article about Mohammed Al Fayed's insistence that the Duke of Edinburgh arranged for Diana to be murdered by bad driving, that's anti-royalist? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody told it's anti-Israeli. People are concerned that these articles may be viewed as anti-Arab/Muslim. My feeling is that most people (at least not too much concerned with the conflict) will just laugh and have a good feeling ("finally something relaxing about this conflict, poor animals":)). The article cites responses from a Palestinian journalist and Saudi prince, so it's not Israel vs. Arab issue, it's even more Arab vs. Arab - internal issue. I think the author tried to release tensions (by covering a more human sentiment of the conflict, involving animals). It's a pity some people see it as an offense. Akinoame (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are, mistaking, Akinoame, Here's only one example of claiming the article is "anti-Jew".--Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Akinoame, you'd think so, but someone just above described the whole thing as massively anti-jew. Now, I have no doubt that the reason these stories emerge is because of anti-israeli feeling, but the article itself does not have an anti-israeli slant, so it seemed very odd to use this as a reason for deletion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Off2riorob's comment refers to the stories cited in the article, not to the Wikipedia article itself. Akinoame (talk) 16:58, 13 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. No arguments for deletion, nominator has withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid Zabuli

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

This article relies on a single "source". Most of the text cannot be derived from the "source" Even if it could be, this has none of the indicia of a reliable source, as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. So what we're left with is entirely based on prohibited original research David in DC (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SOFIXIT - each of those handy 'find sources' links contain actual RS. u n☯mi 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again we see "poor writing" being conflated with all sorts of entirely unrelated problems, SS, RS and even (oddly) OR in this case. Google Books turns up hundreds of very real, very cogent hits. Phail. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Poor writing"? For heaven's sake, the initial paragraph was verbatim transcription from a page that's not even a reliable source. I've fixed the worst of the copyright violation, but that's not poor writing, it's theft. The remainder isn't written so poorly. Not so well either, but I've seen worse. There may be sources for some of what's in the article right now, but one sure as hell cannot tell so from the page. I've made the spelling of the bank consistent throughout, on the assumption that the bank has nothing to do with Thoroughly Modern Millie. But whether the copyright violation above the heading or the original research below it has the proper spelling, I cannot divine. Unless someone matches some of these googlehits with some of these facts, they are presumptively the original research of the editor who accreted them into our encyclopedia project. No one has done so in the years since the article was tagged. Crap can stay up for some time while awaiting an editor to insert sourcing to differentiate the text from some anonymous dude's apparant original research. "Some time" does not stretch on into infinity. Eventually wheat must be harvested and chaff discarded. For this article, in my view, the reaper's time has come. David in DC (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out, everything below the heading was theft too. The editor who inserted it cut-and-pasted it from a single blog. Right down to the idiosyncratic, inconsistent spelling of the bank's name. So the editor violated WP:COPYVIO and accreted a blogger's original research, verbatim, into the article. Saying there are sources is simply not enough. To be a keeper, there must be some way for the everyday user to know what sources back what facts. On this page, every single thing was cut-and-pasted from one of two websites, neither of them a reliable source. Outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT what possible policy-based argument can be made for retaining this article. It should be deleted, without prejudice to someone creating a new article that bears some passing resemblance to what wikipedia policies call for. Someone who thinks that's worth doing ought to ask to have the article "userfied" until they can research and write such a piece. But it will be a hefty job. They'll be starting from scratch. David in DC (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sure, it's poorly written - but he's very obviously notable. I'm going to start fixing it right now. According to WP:DEADLINE there is no reason to take it down while it's being worked on. ManicSpider (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable -- just check the RSs under google books. Saying that there are sources is in fact enough (if true). AfD is not a tool to fix the way an article appears, if there are RS sources reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Added two references. Player in important negotiations between Washington and Afghanistan in 1949. But could use better sources. Not much mention of him in US or British publications, or in political newspapers & magazines; but it is probably likely that this is a function of his career happening before the Internet age etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that he was a little over 100 when he died in 1998, I'd say that's likely ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current version. The version I refused to delete via speedy back in 207 did not yet have the copyvio--it was added at [13] in 2010 and not spotted until this article was afd'd, though not initially on that basis. . Obviously, material written in such a manner is the obviously copyvio whether or not the source can be immediately identified I'm quite amused actually by the exclamations of dismay that it takes us so long to source articles--good writing and research take time and effort and resources. I have now gone back and warned the editor adding the copyvio-.and he has additionally been adding unsourced material apparently from personal knowledge to a geographical article. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nom I've never done this before, so please be gentle. ManicSpider has performed a heroic WP:RESCUE. He's taken a clearly horrifying example of what shouldn't be here and turned it into an admirable example of what should. I'm quite amused that two years worth of a tag saying the article was sole-sourced led to insertions making it worse but one saying AfD led to a rescue in less than a day. It sorta refutes "...it takes us so long to source articles--good writing and research take time and effort and resources." Apparantly it doesn't. It apparantly takes less than a day. I guess Mr. Johnson was right. David in DC (talk) 11:32, 7 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Celebration

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

Fails WP:EVENT. This was a one time event that fails WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE, all the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (events). As an orphan stub it should be deleted. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-time church service (admittedly a big one, but not spectacularly so in the Megachurch era) with no apparent lasting impactor signifigance. Might be worth a mention at [14], but no merge or redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure its work mentioning at [15] ether. I have been to event like this in the past that had much more people. One was at the rose bowl (and I can't even remember it's name now) and it's not listed there.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking "weak delete" but then found one extra source. With that in the article, I'm now sitting on the fence. bobrayner (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Social events and gatherings. Two news sources with no further coverage that don't detail any lasting impact aren't enough to meet WP:EVENT. But it's all verifiable and encyclopedic and an appropriate merge target exists, so there's no reason to get rid of it altogether. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are currently and have been in the past a large number of events of this type (see Nauvoo pageant and Manti Pageant as current examples) that are not listed at "Social events and gatherings". I think including this as a merge to that page would be inappropriate, unless someone wants to figure out which of the events are notable enough to included there.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I do like the idea of "a traditional Māori haka and concluding remarks by the current president of the church", I can't see the event being particularly notable except, perhaps, for those present. If it had established some kind of Guinness record, maybe. Otherwise, no. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 6 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. Sandstein 07:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fronts of War

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

Yet to be released (or possibly even made) film by non-notable person. No referencing given, and I have found nothing myself. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot to say above that prod was declined by the author, and the above was my reason for prod, which still seems to hold good so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:SPAM or WP:CRYSTAL? There is nothing in reliable sources about this almost single-man project that doesn't have an air date yet - ManicSpider (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not speedy films... however, I agree this one is, at best, premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. - ManicSpider (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. If the project ever begins and gets itself some coverage, then an undeletion might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just looked through the character list added to the article. Oh dear. Three Field Marshals. It is not a common rank in British military history and currently in disuse, but "The United States has never used the rank of field marshal" (quoted from the Wikipedia article Field Marshal, and one of them is a KBE to boot. According to KBE, "Several past American statesmen and diplomats who have performed service for, or on behalf of, the United Kingdom" have received an honorary KBE. Was this 'Field Marshall' also a diplomat? Which part of the Vietnam conflict was he in? At its commencement he would have been about 55, at its end 75. (The same applies to Lieutenant Arthur Anderson who fought in both World Wars - but there is no mention for either of Korea; perhaps they had a break.) For an FM, 55+ is acceptable - for a Lieutenant it is pushing things somewhat even in a desk position. Peridon (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has far greater problems than the creative licenses taken by the filmmaker... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 13 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 Article was a copy paste of Cali Swag District with some words changed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nue Money

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

This was copied, with changes, from long-standing article Cali Swag District along with that article's references. Artist doesn't appear to be notable - Google finds Youtube and other video sites, Myspace, Twitter and Facebook but no reliable sources. Nothing on Google news. Speedy deletion contested. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not contested: declined. I came upon it while deleting CSDs, and it plainly didn't qualify for the G3 (hoax) deletion for which it was tagged. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That's why i brought it here; I'd have gone for db-band if the doner article's references weren't there. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Take out what belongs to Cali Swag District and you are left with an article worthy of a db-band deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD G3 (hoax) "includes blatant and obvious misinformation" and this page is clearly based on misinformation. That's why I applied the speedy deletion in the first place. Add to that CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G3 I don't see how patently obvious wrong chart positions don't qualify as blatant hoaxing... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:19, 10 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. Sandstein 07:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary anna dennard

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

Non-notable person. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. (Being asked to contribute a single column to the NY Times Blog, which was then quoted by two other blogs, hardly counts as being a "special contributor" or as significant coverage.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of sufficient notability that I can see. Peridon (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is not a major writer by any stretch; no reliable sources exist to document her life. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 08:07, 9 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 - joke page, blanked by the creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schulman Paradox

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

unreferenced essay, added by its author, see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax The article is hand-adjusted gibberish, and the external link [16] takes you a "paper" obviously generated by [17] or something like it. I've tagged it db-hoax. EEng (talk) 19:42, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Atlas

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

This is an obvious candidate for deletion no sources and poor notability claims. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - A quick look finds sources, and he's the star of an anime series called Transformers: Zone. Mathewignash (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Transformers:Zone was not a "series" it had only one episode. NotARealWord (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete. -- Yeah, but wasn't that one episode a two-parter? Anyway, delete, or merge to Japan. Roadie4MarshallTuckerBand (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge to Japan? That's pretty nonsensical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wiki_brah again. Ignore him. Mathewignash (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently a character in a one-episode series, if indeed something with a single episode can even be a series. I don't even see this as worthy of a merge to a character list, to be honest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the ANIMATED series was scrapped the story was told in a series of manga, so he's a manga character, plus he's make guest spots in later series. Mathewignash (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't seem notable enough for his own article. Any good redirect target? NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Another weakly sourced plot summary about a very minor Transformers character. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 6 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. And then redirect. Sandstein 07:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ejector (Transformers)

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

This is an obvious candidate for deletion no sources and poor notability claims. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sources, not even any assertion of notability. Reyk _YO! 05:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. Dolphin (t) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as likely search term to Characters in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen where this character is already mentioned. No independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as notable character. Turnstitle (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Turnstitle has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 8 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. Sandstein 07:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hive (Transformers)

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

This is an obvious candidate for deletion no sources and poor notability claims. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- sourceless plot summary about minor Transformers characters that fails to establish notability. Reyk _YO! 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 6 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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. There does not seem to be sufficient material for a separate article yet DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila

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

The article is nothing but a duplication of an existing page, which is the Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

Formal naming conventions of Philippine universities and colleges states that main campuses adhere to the institutions' generic name (see state colleges and universities naming conventions). UP System is an exemption, because each campuses are of equal standing with each other. If we'll continue to use PUP for the system and PUP Manila for the main campus, it seems like PUP Main is just like the different PUP campuses. PUP Main (or what you call PUP Manila) is the PUP itself. Also, it doesn't have the same standing as other campuses since its is the Main and the most important entity of the university. It's just that the university has extension campuses and branches. See the conventions used by University of Michigan, Mindanao State University and University of Washington. PUP Manila is not recognized by CHED as the official name for the PUP main campus. It should be simply called PUP in formal documents, except for satellite campuses. It is the same convention used by other philippine universities and colleges. The article PUP and PUP Manila create confusion for others, because they will think that PUP Manila is just a branch of PUP. PUP is not a full-fledged university system like the University of the Philippines or University of California. It is a university in Manila with extension campuses around the country. Isko1901 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Your argument above is persuasive. But the main PUP article should make this point clearer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. Plausible search term for someone wishing to look up the article for the main campus, and redirects are cheap. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think: Before I vote definitively one way or the other, what's the difference between this article and an example I'm more familiar with, the University of Toronto vs the University of Toronto Mississauga? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because in this case the Manila campus is the primary one, not the satellite. You would not have a separate article on "University of Toronto: Main Campus" -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. I concluded the opposite from the text above. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - The article itself is only supported by one reasonable source reference and itself doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:LOCAL in its present form. If it can be improved with more citation from reliable third party sources it maybe saved from AfD, however at the time of this comment this article is lacking. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 7 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Cappiello

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

Autobiographical article about a presenter whose only claim to fame appears to be the host of a TV show that doesn't have an article on here (and anyway, notability isn't inherited. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a bit of sockpuppetry may be afoot with the removal of the speedy delete tags, BTW. As for the article, clear fails Notability. Safiel (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax created by serial sockpuppeteer, see my comments here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:21, 6 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. Sandstein 07:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Baghiu

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

Even if technically permissible, it takes a certain gall to write an autobiography, which this is, but it seems Mr Baghiu, no stranger to self-promotion, has it. After all, why not claim for himself a coveted spot on Wikipedia, simply because he can? Well, he will at least have to face the scrutiny of AfD, as I for one consider him non-notable.

In analyzing his notability, I will feel free to ignore the large parts of his autobiography which are unsourced and therefore not verifiable. Still, we are left with the following:

He's a member of the Iaşi chapter of the Romanian Writers' Union. Good for him, but so are some 300 others. The very head of this branch has noted that the main condition for entry is signing a form, and that it functions primarily as a social/career club. Others have commented on the glaring lack of standards in admitting members.
He's second-in-command at this branch's literary magazine. That's nice, but given that the magazine is not even carried by the National Library of Romania, one must question how important this distinction is.
He belongs to the PEN club. Again, great, but he's hardly alone in Romania, not to mention the many thousands of others in International PEN clubs.
He's had a short story published in a German book. Unless all published short story authors are notable, I fail to see how this advances claims of notability.
He's had poems published in various online magazines. Some of these are hosted on free websites and probably breach WP:SELFPUB. Even the others have very weak editorial standards. For instance, at first glance it may seem impressive that poeticdiversity put up his biography. But then we read in their submissions policy that poets should send in "a brief bio" — so this is yet another autobiography we're dealing with. It's clear Mr Baghiu knows about the various ways one can promote oneself through the Internet, and that he's sent his work to various no-name online magazines, but that doesn't really build on his notability.
We have reference to two German articles, but no sense of why these matter in establishing his notability. Also to a short story published in Austria; see above for that.
Finally, we have reference to an article he wrote about one John Yamrus. Looking at the article, I noticed something amusing: the claim that he is "one of the most important contemporary American poets". But John Yamrus is a redlink. Then I went to Baghiu's site and saw this gem: "the great Romanian poet Vasile Baghiu is now writing the most amazing poems in English... Over the years he and I have picked up an admiration for each others' work" -- John Yamrus (in a reply on a poetry forum on the Internet, in 2008). That's a nice self-congratulation society the two have going there, but really, there's no reason we should be drawn into it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, none of the arguments above do anything to establish or dis-establish a claim of N. N is not based on self-publishing, but 3rd parties. That said, the arguments are both in-depth, and amusing... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc. Qworty (talk) 07:52, 9 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. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantean language

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

Only sources in article are directly related to the film. This is entirely in-universe plot summary and blatant original research. In any event it's also indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator states that the only sources are "directly related" to the film. If that is supposed to imply that none of these are independent sources, and all are controlled by Disney, the filmmaker, that is incorrect. Among the sources are a book published by Dorling Kindersley, an article in USA Today, and websites such as Animationarchive.net, Reel.com, Moviehabit.com and Langmaker.com. The last appears out of business. Though I don't claim that all are excellent sources, I don't believe any of these six are Disney controlled sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a extremely minor fictional element. It has not proven real notability outside Atlantis, by receiving deep coverage by reliable secondary sources, discussing the fictional language independently from the film. It also has no impact in popular culture. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as not indescriminate and covered in multiple independent reliable sources. If it was such a minor element, one has to wonder at the quantity of in-depth critical commentary this "minor" element has. And while yes, the coverage is in relationship to Atlantis: The Lost Empire, so what? One would certainly expect that sources discussing a fictional element would need to and be required to do so in context to the notable film of which the element is a part. It meets WP:GNG... just as does Starship Enterprise and Millenium Falcon... and this article is far better sourced that either of those notable elements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The argument that it's OR doesn't hold up as the majority of content is sourced (although the vocabulary section isn't and should probably go). Notability is tricky to assess as it's not always obvious which of the sources are reliable. USA Today is fine, and this one looks acceptable, so the topic would appear to just about meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Angr (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had and has an impact on pop culture. At the time, the alphabet was on all sorts of merchandise and a lot of people from that age group learned it. It's comparable to other made-up languages for fiction, like Tolkein's Elvish, Avatar's language, or Klingon, it just didn't establish a community for more than 2 years. But in the world of hobbyists who make their own languages, it's very famousArticle Referencing Conlangs, as it's one of few constructed languages to be featured in a major motion picture, and it's also by the same guy who scored with Klingon (Dr. Mark Okrand). It's also important because Avatar was chiefly based on Atlantis: The Lost Empire to the very last details, from blue skin to including having a constructed language.

Dr. Okrand and Tolkein are the two most famous professional constructed language makers of all time, and their work is high-profile for conlangers. Constructed languages are fairly rare in books or movies, and Atlantean is far better explained than most, though it never received a book devoted to it, like Klingon. Furthermore, Atlantean is also significant in that, together with the American Heritage Dictionary's Appendix of Indo-European Roots and perhaps the same Calvert Watkin's book How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European, it's one of the two widest exposures that Indo-European has gotten to the public-at-large (being mostly based on PIE).

Any conlang in a major motion picture or published novel should have a Wikipedia article. It's a rare art form and an interesting phenomena. You know, conlangs are real languages made by linguists, with syntax, morphology, phonology, and idioms, not just code writing systems or code words for English. Just because most authors or movie-makers are too ignorant of linguistics to make one, and most of American audiences are too mono-lingual to appreciate one, doesn't mean conlangs are irrelevant. And among conlangs, Atlantean is something like a prince, if Klingon is a king or emperor. Conlangs, like real languages, have their place in art and pop culture, like Na'vi did in Avatar or Hawaiian did in Lilo and Stich Wiki News article on conlangs.

Blissglyphs (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems to have the sources to establish notability. It would be better if the article was shorter and focused on the background and importance of the language. The degree of detail now given would be better in an official site or a good fan site linked at the end. But whatever don't delete. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent, unrelated references in sufficient number, and the topic of the article does seem to be notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd like to add more, but Blissglyphs has already worded it better than I possibly could. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from the above mentioned points regarding the language's notability, I also disagree that it is a plot summary about the movie. One paragraph summarizes the plot very broadly in order to show why it was designed the way it was. The remainder of the article very closely resembles articles on nearly any other language, natural or constructed. The examples are lines from the movie as that is the only body of literature for the language. But as it is a functional language, one could easily write any number of sentences to demonstrate the same points. However, there is no reason to when a source already exists. aremisasling (talk) 20:05, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Nurse

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

Non-notable magazine lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find absolutely no independent sourcing about this small magazine. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam

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

An information technology and software company selling only to other companies in that industry. Of little interest to readers of a general encyclopedia and scant evidence of notability given. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in User talk:RHaworth and Talk:Veeam, this article will likely improve in the coming days. Is there some part of WP:COMPANY that's not met at this point? There are lots of secondary sources [18] --SFoskett (talk)

delete In answer to the question, the part of COMPANY that isn't met is the part requiring coverage other than routine press releases, product announcements, and trade show filler in industry-specific publications. EEng (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm not employed or paid by this company, but I know them and attest that they're fairly well known in the industry. I've added some references from CRN, Dell Power Solutions, and NetworkWorld. Their relationship with Aelita Software Corporation is interesting (and news to me)... --SFoskett (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria and as mentioned above if you don't count tradeshow notices and product announcements there aren't many references to work with. Perhaps in time as the company generates more sources it could be added but right now I just don't see it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Cheng

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

Procedurally completing nomination on behalf of Student7 (talk · contribs), as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the nomination rationale is that this is an unreferenced BLP article on a person of dubious notability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search did not find any noteworthy hits. It would appear that person is competent physicist, but not (yet) notable, leading to scanty citation.Student7 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with searching: GS gives hits for Y Fung (who has lots of cites) but does not seem to be Y Chang. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete if no-one can come up with better sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteHe might prove to be notable at some point, but not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzad.Fatahi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CMIIM2008

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

No evidence of notability, beyond the notability of its parent organisation, the American Society for Microbiology. Dweller (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to American Society for Microbiology. The article doesn't even claim notability for this committee, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSI (pinball)

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

This AfD is for about a dozen articles on various themed pinball game variations manufactured by Stern (game company) (see below for full list). None of these pinball games have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore are not notable. These articles are purely promotional fancruft, and should be deleted. The articles which are nominated for deletion are:

- SnottyWong ^squeal 19:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a pinball title is roughly the quivalent of a video game in terms of notability, and we generally don't delete those. The nomination of the CSI machine is especially strange, since it's a Pat Lawlor design. There are definitely reliable sources that cover pinball, including more than a few books with coverage of individual machines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point us to some of these reliable sources which pass WP:GNG, or add them to the article(s)? Otherwise, your !vote is just WP:ITSNOTABLE. If Pat Lawlor is notable, perhaps some of these can be merged to his article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The Pinball Compendium 1983 to Present (ISBN 0764323008) should cover all of these up through 2005, and indeed the Elvis one is even pictured on the cover twice! For a good overview of modern pinball, Stern and Lawlor, check out TILT: The Battle to Save Pinball. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't forget ISBN 9780321643377, which discusses RollerCoaster Tycoon in several places throughout the book, including the fact that it has no victory condition. (c.f. Unwinnable (AfD discussion)) Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never read that book, but it sounds like it might be about the video game rather than the pinball. Pinballs usually don't have victory conditions aside from jackpots and free games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's in the introductory chapter of the book that it says that particular thing, where it's talking about various different kinds of games, so it's unclear at first blush. Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see. Interesting. Well then there's another potential source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I had a quick look for (other) sources on The Lord of the Rings, because that sounded interesting. I found a small number of sources that mention that, yes, a pinball machine existed. (Although one, ISBN 9781843532750, mentions a 1977 LoTR pinball machine made by Atari, rather than the one described in the article at hand.) I haven't found anything yet that documents the machine in depth. They're mainly mentions in discussions of all of the LoTR games taken together (and thus probably good sources for Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien#Games). Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the pinball compendium or any of these other sources that you mention? There doesn't appear to be a way to access them online, and therefore I can't be sure if any of those books discuss any of these games in a significant way. In other words, does the pinball compendium just list stats of these games, like who designed them, when they were released, who designed the sounds, how many bumpers it had, how many were sold, etc. Or, does it actually discuss the impact these particular games had on the industry, other games they may have inspired or been inspired by, unique features they debuted, etc.? In other words, are they just sources of information or do they actually provide the significant coverage required to establish notability?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Err ... "potential sources" is not a valid ground to Keep. It's the responsibility of Keep proponents not to infer that sources might exist, but to provide multiple sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Mere mention of a pinball game's existence doesn't cut it, nor does a single couple-paragraph entry in an omnibus publication. Ravenswing 19:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... for now. As the author of the aforementioned stubs, I believe that I should explain the perspective from which I come in creating these pages.

First, please allow me to clarify that these are most certainly not WP:ADVERTs. I not only have no financial connection to Stern, but I have also created about 100 other pinball articles by other manufacturers, worked on the topic in general, and was an editor of Wikipedia long before I started doing any of the above. If you need further evidence I can provide it, but I would certainly appreciate it if others would assume good faith.

Next then: are they fancruft? I can't speak objectively enough to answer that. What I can say is that I chose to focus a lot of my attention on pinball articles since it is an area in which I can provide subject expertise. But that does not mean that I'm putting my interests ahead of the goals of Wikipedia. In any event, I think it better to look at the potential reasons for deletion.

Getting to those reasons, then, I agree that the question of reliable sources is a valid concern. I have been trying to get time to work out a set of criteria for what constitutes a valid pinball machine article, including what constitutes a reliable source. I know that the Internet Movie Database is not considered reliable, but the IPDB does state that their information is from multiple-source research with editorial control. And I can tell you that within the field, the IPDB is very-well respected: I've never heard anyone in the field speak ill of them, nor even point out a single error.

Now, there are other encyclopedic pinball sites, some of which I list on some of the individual machine pages, but most of them (from what I know) port their information over from IPDB. So even if we could them as a reliable source, that is still only one. (Can an argument be made for Pinball News? Siding probably with no, but only really considering the question for the first time right now.)

Moving to the print world, there is one current industry magazine, and there have been others. I've only ever much looked at the former, but from what I remember of it, there should be enough both information and professional editorial control to count it in.

So I'm not of the opinion that reliable sources is a problem. What I am more concerned about is notability. There are more than 5,000 known pinball machines. I highly doubt that they are all worthy of inclusion, but I also highly doubt that none of them are either. One thing that I have been able to do is to poke around some related WikiProjects for some guidelines that I can use, but I have yet to find anything consistent.

What I would really like to see is a consensus guideline developed so that we can reduce the possibility of having to consider future deletions. To that end, I would like to ask that these articles be kept just for now, so that we can get more voices in here who have worked in enough related areas to come up with a consensus that is consistent with editing practices in other topic areas. I do apologize, as this is something I was working towards as it was, but since this AfD sort of beat me to it, I'd like the opportunity now to step back and discuss this with editors from other areas to come up with a set of more clear guidelines for the future. Thank you, Fractalchez (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that IPDB would probably pass as a reliable source for information about these different pinball games (ask at WP:RSN if you want to be sure), but it wouldn't qualify as a source which establishes the notability of the game. As far as I can tell, it just lists statistics about each pinball game. If you're aware of specific articles in the other magazines you noted which establish the notability of any or all of the games nominated here for deletion, I'd suggest adding them to the articles and/or presenting them here. SnottyWong ^comment 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and for all of the above cases, there exists at least one article on Pinball News (linked here), and at least one article from the PinGame Journal (archived but not accessible here): in some cases more than one. Now in turn, let me also point out one caveat to this notability: right now Stern is the only remaining pinball manufacturer, meaning that just about every new machine that comes out gets attention by default.

So again, trying to step outside my interest and being as objective as I can, I'm not certain that even these two links establish sufficient notability. But it does seem, just estimating on the fly (short on time, will do more research on this in a day or two) that this level of notability matches the required level to meet in other interests, especially gaming/entertainment. But I'm really guessing on memory right now: will come back to this. Fractalchez (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I was worried that being really busy that I would come back here and discover the AfD passed. Glad to see that wasn't the case, as I don't think that at least these articles qualify, just yet anyway.

I'm going to reiterate my previous suggestion: keep them for now, and work to create a set of community guidelines that will give solid criteria for which articles should be kept and which deleted. Here's the thing: even if the above are kept, judging by the results of this discussion, there are a lot that would rightly be deleted, so taking this approach doesn't necessarily mean that articles which should be deleted won't eventually be. I hate suggesting a "punt" like this, but this does seem a difficult call, and I would rather see us have the time necessary toward making the right one. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards delete a pinball game is definitely not as notable as a video game. Even flops in video game industry have higher sells than moderately successful pinball ones, and possibly even more players. Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if we want to use related articles for comparison, it might be more accurate to use arcade games than home video games (arcades ... remember those?). The number of players is far higher than the number of machines sold, since games on ___location can be easily played by thousands of unique people. But that seems a comparison of limited use, since most arcade games eventually become home system games, whereas most pinball machines don't (it's only starting to become a trend to make video reproductions of actual pinball machines instead of unique creations, but most games still don't have any equivalent video port).

On the other hand, simple production numbers themselves don't tell the whole story, since the older a machine is, the more likely it is in such disrepair as to effectively not exist anymore. Many games from, say, the 60s had respectable production runs, but you'd be challenged to find even one you can play publicly any more: most are now in the hands of private collectors. Most games from the last 5 years, though, aren't. So I honestly don't know where that all leaves us. Fractalchez (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak/IAR keep I think we've got a good faith editor who is working hard at sourcing these. Give it a few months and then come back, I think they have a chance. And yes, I'm well aware that WP:BITE isn't an inclusion guideline, thus the IAR... Hobit (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Starblind's sources may be enough, I don't know and he seems an expert in the area. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hobit. Gage (talk) 02:38, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isadora Trentini

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

Unsourced BLP, found nothing on a google search sans presumably her twitter page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is unverifiable that she even exists, based on the online searches that I made. This is a possible hoax, or she is a very minor, local performer. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 7 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. There is a consensus here that most, if not all, of these are notable and there is certainly no way I as closer can determine any particular articles which should be merged (I see no support for deletion). If people think a particular article should be merged then they can start a discussion elsewhere, but consensus here is that a bulk merge of all the articles is not required. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Riverina

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

1233 ABC Newcastle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Upper Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
612 ABC Brisbane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
720 ABC Perth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Gippsland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Western Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Northern Tasmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
105.7 ABC Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
891 ABC Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Capricornia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
666 ABC Canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Goulburn Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Mildura Swan Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC South West Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
783 ABC Alice Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Kimberley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC North and West SA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Central West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
936 ABC Hobart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1062 ABC Riverland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC South East SA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC West Coast SA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Goldfields-Esperance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Great Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC South Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Midwest & Wheatbelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC North West WA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC South West WA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC North Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
90.3 ABC Coast FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
91.7 ABC Coast FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Far North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC North West Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Southern Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Tropical North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Western Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Wide Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
999 ABC Broken Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
92.5 ABC Central Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
97.3 ABC Illawarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Mid North Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Western Plains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC New England North West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC North Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
702 ABC Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
774 ABC Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC South East NSW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
107.9 ABC Ballarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Central Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ABC Shepparton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge all, with any recoverable information pushed to List of ABC radio stations, and all turned into redirects. All but three (1,2,3) of these stations contain either no references (example), or a single primary source reference to ABC online (example). Of the three that don't, they each contain a single reference. Many contain show schedules (example), violating WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. There's just not enough verifiable content to sustain these articles as anything other than stubs or even microstubs. The list article is considerably more appropriate, and should be fleshed out with what information can be recovered. Any station developed well enough to spin off can be recreated at a later date. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why take a discussion about merging these articles to AfD? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in effect, all of them will be deleted. There's not much to salvage. Plus, many AfDs result in merges. As the instructions note, "Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD". Attempting to merge an entire group of articles like this is very likely to be contested. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are they plausible search terms for redirects?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. I don't live in Australia (only been there) but I imagine these article titles are the names the stations go by. So, if someone were trying to find such and such station, it would be one of the ones listed above. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is relevant information to merge from most pages. Suggest all be merged to a list with columns from the infobox (example)--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some information. There's a lot of information on the articles that is either unsourced or primary sourced. Some of it is just bare information (frequency, ___location, etc.). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some and merge the others, ABC Riverina (as is ABC Goulburn Murray) is notable but just needs work on adding history and citing third party sources, 105.7 ABC Darwin is also notable as it was in fact 5DR but unsure how easy it will be to get the history for it, ABC Canberra I would have to look into. The other capital cities ABC stations are also notable but needing of sourcing, expanding and a clean-up. Bidgee (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be content with merging all of them and recreating them once sufficient material for worthy ones exists on the list? That's what I have in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is merging would lose the history (depending on how it is done [I've seen articles deleted then redirected, making it impossible to know what existed]). One thing that has popped up in past AfD's is that stations that have been broadcasting for sometime (not 20 or 40 years) have been deemed notable or due to the fact they have a license to broadcast. Bidgee (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Although there's not a set policy, the usual outcome on articles about FCC licensed radio stations in the United States is that they are kept, per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, although very low power stations (100 watt) are not considered notable. By analogy, a radio station authorized by Australian Communications and Media Authority or the Australian Broadcasting Authority would be kept. There's no reason offered for deleting all of the items on the list as a group (i.e., an assumption that all radio stations are inherently non-notable, or perhaps that affiliates of Australia's version of NPR should be referred to in one list), and it appears that the idea is to start a merger discussion, which can be done without coming here. Just looking at some of these, such as 612 ABC Brisbane, which broadcasts at 50,000 watts, they would generally pass. Mandsford 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all OK, some (I'm not sure which) could probably go, but this is not just a heap of stations created by a major network, with all content distributed from that central point. My pet station from your target list is 3LO in Melbourne, which, as its redirect will tell you, was forced by those dictatorial, uninformed network bosses in Sydney to change its name to 774 ABC Melbourne. And they were probably just trying to please some Sydney based politician. You see, my deliberately over-the top language will show you that you're touching on sensitive public ownership here. (The moral kind.) 3LO still delivers content entirely different from its brother (master?) station in Sydney (rates better too), and often provides content to the whole of Victoria. And before it became an ABC station it actually had a life as a private commercial operation, so it would be quite wrong to just stick it under an ABC heading. More content could easily be added (but I haven't done it yet), and it's obvious that a merger would cause the loss of some content. This is a proposal designed to reduce what is in Wikipedia, rather than enhance it. If it's an issue, I have no problem with the program guide disappearing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is being a stub justification for deletion? To my mind tagging these articles with something like Template:Refimprove would have been more productive. Hack (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except those that have been expanded to more than a sub-stub, supported by independent references - without prejudice to splitting out sections in the future as they are expanded. I agree with the arguments that all these radio stations are notable in their own right and not mere re-broadcasters of networked content and I would strongly oppose deleting them but at this stage the vast majority of them do not have sufficient sourced content to support an article on their own. My gut reaction is to keep them all as stand alone articles but I don't think I can rationally justify it at this stage. It shouldn't take much to expand stations like 3LO and 4QR to a size suitable for standing alone. ABC Wide Bay may take a little longer. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I just had a look for sources for my local, 720 ABC Perth, and found
- "6WF". Bulletin of the Kalamunda and Districts Historical Society (August/September 1999): 3–5. 1999. [History of 6WF on its 75th anniversary]
- Ciallella, Rebecca Michelle (1991). The shaping of a voice: the early years of 6WF (Honours thesis). Murdoch University.
- Several contemporary accounts of its establishment and opening in the 1920s in issues of Western Wireless.

In my view these sources suffice to establish notability. The burden is on the nominator to show which of the others aren't just as notable. Hesperian 04:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, it's not. The burden is on editors to improve articles by adding citations and removing unreferenced material. At the time of the opening of this AfD, only three of the 51 articles here had non-primary sources. There's no objection by me or anyone else to recreation of independent articles when their material in the list becomes sufficient to actually sustain an article. As it, virtually all of the material on these articles is uncited. Ok, fine, they're notable. Improve the articles then. It shouldn't be hard. But many of these articles have existed for years without improvement. Now there's a flashlight on them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, the default here is to keep, nominators have to prove the article should be deleted. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not destroying by removing a page that is not getting better. Even a minimal stub in this list is better than many entries in other encyclopedias, and since most are notable because of having their own transmitter studio and programming in the past there will be plenty of references in older newspapers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one of the reasons for a speedy keep decision is that the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion, which is certainly the case here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep long running permanent radio stations supported by references should have an article here. We do not have to delete a stub because it is small. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When looking for supporting references I find that it exists for all the stations I search out, including New Zealand newspaper references as well as local newspapers. This shows that all the early ones at least are notable. And it looks as if they should all be kept as separate articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is not a deletion discussion; it is clearly a merge proposal as evidenced by the nominator's rationale and should have been the subject of a merge discussion, not listing at AfD. As per WP:KEEP, the nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion and has only proposed a non-deletion action i.e. merging. No one other than the nominator has recommended that the pages be deleted so this is clearly a speedy keep and should be closed as such. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate articles for at least some, eg the major capital city stations such as 720 ABC Perth. (My personal bias: I'm from Perth and big fan of the ABC, both radio and TV.) Mitch Ames (talk)

Whoa there... I'll take it upon myself to make some improvements to 774 ABC Melbourne (anyone else is welcome to help too, of course), but I would like a target standard to aim for. Where can I look to see examples of or guidelines on what a great radio station page should look like? HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (radio), while not being a local station, seems to be about the best radio station article I've seen. Hack (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of some local station articles that are good are WWPR-FM or KHTY. Generally, the content beyond the information box (which has info about ___location on the radio dial, wattage, format, geographic ___location as listed on the license, areas served) would be history and programming, and if the station has a website, a link to that. I'm glad that HiLo48 confirmed that these stations aren't simply a transmitter of network programs. Mandsford 13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in most cases expandable articles (regional radio and tv of the abc have 'identities' of their own and are almost all expandable) - of all the suggestions above - Hack's - ref improve - is one very obvious positive move - the nominator (as pointed out above) is obviously not Australian - as Australian regional rivalries would be a good indicator as to why regional tv and radio stations are specifically regional identity sustainers - and as a consequence inherently notable by the issues they carry in programming and style - also Mansfords (and others) response is a good indicator the wrong 'device' (Afd) has been applied here - I would think that

a list of them all
a category to contain them
separate articles each are valid for all 'real' regional stations - if there any repeaters where no studios exist - might be a valid reason to merge into a list, but certainly not deletion Satu Suro 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all with redirects Ignoring the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, the point is here is not that these stations aren't worth mention in WP, but that they yet don't show enough info to validate an individual article for each. There may be a few that are very notable, they can have it but that needs to be shown and developed, which the above discussion to this point has yet to show. We can , however, justify a list of these stations and brief statements from source to explain a bit about each station, and provide redirects so that, say searching "ABC Riverina" still takes you to the right place. As a station is found notable for its own article, it can then be broken out to its own article. But right now all that is there is the list of affiliate stations of ABC, nothing more, nothing less. A list is the best answer for these. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of these have good sources and are major radio stations in their respective regions. Merging these useful articles into a list is completely useless (any readers know the name of the station and where it's from; the entire point of them looking it up on Wikipedia is that they want more information). Moreover, merging would destroy the history and make their expansion a nightmare. Rebecca (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have good sources?!?!?! All but a small handful have no secondary sources at all. Some have no sources whatsoever, even primary sources. Merging them wouldn't eliminate the salvageable content, and the redirects would still allow for users to search for the station name. Turning them into redirects would not destroy the history. I'm sorry, but I fail to see anything in your keep that succesfully argues in favor of retention of the articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those with sufficient sources to demonstrate standalone notability. Merge the rest into an appropriate list or lists. Eg, "List of ABC radio stations", or "List of radio stations in Australia"., keeping all content such as first air date, operator, frequency, broadcast power, broadcast area, etc. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looky here... OK, I invite eyes to 774 ABC Melbourne. I have removed the program guide, tidied up a lot, and added references. If anyone dares to suggest that the article is still appropriate for deletion, I would would argue that they have rocks in their head. Suggestions, corrections and new contributions are, as always, totally welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Large numbers of independent reliable sources should be available for most, if not all, of these stations so a bulk merge nomination like this isn't appropriate. I'd suggest evaluating these article on a case by case basis, possibly via a discussion at WP:AWNB (or another appropriate forum) Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Do you sincerely doubt any of these exist? Isn't there some government website listing all radio stations in the country are at. Are radio stations, television stations, magazines, and newspapers, only notable if they mention each other? Dream Focus 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Per all above. What were you thinking? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and clean them up as required. If they contain show schedules, then delete the schedules. If they have no references, then add references. If some of them are permastubs, then start a merge discussion. If they're going to be merged, I doubt you're going to be able to convince anyone to merge all 50 or so articles down to one article. SnottyWong ^speak 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not snowing in Australia, where it's summer, but it should be here. Unfortunately, even more rain showers to add to the miseries in Queensland and NSW. Mandsford 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as not only are government-licensed broadcast radio stations generally held to be notable, the nominator offered no rationale for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the guideline/policy that says government licensed broadcast radio stations get a free pass to exist for years without secondary sources, virtually no content, and no claims of notability other than their mere existence? Something existing doesn't make it worthy of its own article here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep (or withdraw AfD) for this set of related pages in its current form — but with the understanding that a new AfD can be opened with the ones (if any) that may be truly non-notable stations that have never had significant local programming of their own and could be merged up into subtopics of nearby major stations or ABC Local Radio or Radio National. --Closeapple (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the "usual outcomes" of broadcast AfDs in other countries: in the U.S., for example, the vast majority of stations have a history of local management and programming, and they almost always survive AfD as notable; but there are certain groups of noncommercial stations that are almost totally rebroadcasters in practice (even though many of them are licensed as fully autonomous full-power stations), and those stations' articles are usually merged up into the "flagship" station or network feeding them. I am not as familiar with Australian broadcasting, but: The determining factor, I think, would be which ABC stations really had the ability to create their own programs and have their own history and coverage from other reliable sources, other than simply existing and doing "local" drop-in reports required across all ABC stations without ever having done anything else. It seems from the comments above that both kinds of stations are mixed into this same AfD. --Closeapple (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly recommend that you withdraw this AFD as it will ultimatley result in a keep closure. If you have an issue with the articles, I'd suggest doing them seperatley or taking this to another discussion for merger or redirects. This is obviously not going to close as a delete, and I'm half tempted myself to close this as a snow keep. Dusti^*poke* 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above. I concur that large numbers of independent reliable sources are likely to be available for most, if not all. A number of the articles already have been expanded and referenced justifying their retention. I'd strongly suggest that the nominator withdraw this AFD and that an evaluation of each article be undertaken on a case by case basis. Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomas Pisarra

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable even if all claims are true. Why do so many doctors and lawyers, who presumably want potential clients to think they are savvy and intelligent, embarrass themselves in this way? EEng (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with improving, but being a published author of two books and a newspaper columnist seem valid claims of notability to me. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The books are non-notable self-published paperbacks. Where does it say that just being a book author or a columnist meets any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Please provide support for your assumptions. ttonyb (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What assumptions? What evidence do you have that the books are self-published? I don't believe there is any Wikipedia criteria that specifically covers authors or columnists. Which part of notability guidelines do you believe this fails? This guy is borderline, in my opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Your assumption that publishing a couple of books and being a columnist makes one "notable". Please read WP:AUTHOR. This is not a matter of the which criteria does he not meet, but rather which criteria does he meet. He either meets the criteria or not. Please provide which he meets. ttonyb (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPA, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an autobiography with no coverage in reliable sources. Neither of the books can be found on WorldCat, nor are there any reviews or any critical coverage. Self-published or not, these books are not notable. Nor is there coverage about the author. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. About the books: they are published by "Libero Media", which has absolutely no presence on the web or at Amazon [19] except in connection with this attorney's two books. Chances are he just made up the name "Libero Media" when he self-published the books last November. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 11 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 Ricki-Lee Coulter. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear No, See No, Speak No

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

Without a confirmed release date or track listing this album article is WP:CRYSTAL BALL violation. Articles should not exist for never-ending speculation. I will support a redirect to Ricki-Lee Coulter if others do. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ricki-Lee Coulter. The drama surrounding the non-release of the album seems to have been well covered but until the album is a reality, the drama can be mentioned at the artist's article as an item in her biography. The sources are sufficient for a biographical event but the album does not qualify for its own article until it is released (if ever). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ricki-Lee Coulter. I am a frequent editor to this singer and I agree, the article should be merged. There were sources that said it would be released in November 2009, but it got pushed back to 2010 but didn't get released, so I don't think the album will ever get a release since she took a year off in music. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if no announcement has been made then this is purely speculative. Artists who have genuine reasons to pushback records usually make some acknowledgement of it. However if an album has a release date and then the release date passes but there is no evidence to suggest its actually been released then it isn't notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:36, 6 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 moot. extraneous nomination Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC) This is a non-notable person, in as such as he is famous only for appearing in the 2010 show of The Apprentice. An outline on him is included in the official Wikipedia list of canddates. This article also appears to rather slanted against Baggs, and it is certainly not NPOV.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:15, 6 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 David Cameron#Personal life. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Cameron

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

The newborn baby of non-royalty is not INDEPENDENTLY notable, I'm sorry. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes. No need for an article just to report the birth of a baby. Wolfview (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just take it back to this version as a categorised and targeted redirect to her father's article? That's how it was until very recently. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Absolutely agree. I created this as a useful redirect shortly after her birth, as people will search for it, but at present she's not notable enough for her own article. Perhaps in twenty years from now if she enters public life. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually, had I discovered this article before it was nominated for deletion I would have changed it back to a redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The child at present can't be notable enough for her own article, but a redirect will be most helpful to anyone looking for information about her. Technician Fry (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 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 Optimus Prime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)

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

There is already an article at Optimus Prime which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be of dubious notability, and does not have any significant reliable third-party sources. The sources which do exist are mainly long discredited fansites. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an obvious keep here. The star of a TV series doesn't get deleted. If you need sources look here: http://www.highbeam.com/search/?searchTerm=%22optimus%20prime%22%20%22Transformers%20Animated%22&searchType=Article or here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Optimus+Prime%22+%22Transformers+Animated%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&scoring=a If anything merge him back to the page he spun off of, the Optimus Prime (other incarnations) page. Mathewignash (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - My god, there are FOUR articles that need to be disamibig'ed at Optimus Prime ? There should be, and I see there are merger tags, be ONE, with a subsection on various incarnations and appearances. Each appearance of a fictional character in various reboots and sequels and spinoffs does not merit a standalone article. Too much detail, too much fancruft. Overkill. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - I have to agree with Tarc, 4 separate Optimus Prime articles make absolutely no sense from the notability guidelines. I'll say it again, Transformers is the new Wikipedia Pokemon.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This excessive fancruft of multiple incarnatitons is a problem with Megatron, Bumblebee (Transformers), Starscream (Transformers) and Cliffjumper (other incarnations). Dwanyewest (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While a rare occasion, I agree with Tarc on this one. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to accept a merger as a compromise but all the toycruft has to be removed as well. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd point out that the author of this deletion nomination had already written a merger proposal for this article. It seems like a bad faith nomination to delete, when all he really seemed to want was to use the Deletion Nomination to speed through his merger propoosal. If you don't REALLY think an article should be deleted, don't use the deletion proposal as a weapon to get your way. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:42, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Postlethwaite

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

Contested PROD; non-notable player who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - only ever played in semi-professional leagues so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, no significant coverage found in thrid-party sources so fails WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, this subject doesn't meet any of the relevant guidelines. Bettia (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't even played that much semi-professional, let alone pro Spiderone 09:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE unless new refs to point to GNG can be provided. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 13 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 Fictional locations in The Railway Series. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidmouth

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

Non-notable fictional ___location. This could use a merge to Fictional Locations (The Railway Series), but given the amount of content that would have to be removed for a merge, I think an AfD is prudent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge+redirect -- Background -- In the world of the Railway Series books by the Rev W Awdry there are numerous settlements described. A few years ago, most of these had their own stubby article on WP, along with almost every individual character. The 'Thomas' WikiProject was formed, in part, with a view to rationalise this coverage, and the majority of stubs were lumped together into a few list articles. Some of the more significant ones remained as individual articles, especially those which existed in both the books and the TV series (there is considerable overlap, but enough differences that WP descriptions are kept segregated) as this was a convenient way of handling the links from both worlds. Tidmouth, as the largest and most important town on the Island of Sodor, naturally had more written about it.

I agree that Tidmouth doesn't really warrant an article of its own, and further, the crossover between books and TV is minimal. Consequently the content should be merged to the two list pages (Fictional locations in The Railway Series and Fictional locations in Thomas and Friends) We need to check how much of the current information is available in the normal reference sources (about the books) and provide appropriate references -- facts relating to the railways are worth retaining, but some of the background history can be filtered out.

I'm happy to do the referencing and merging, but it is not a five-minute job and I'm not supposed to modify in this way while the AfD is active. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment/update -- in the main reference work, the Rev Awdry devotes two pages to describing Tidmouth (ie a comfortable short WP article's -worth!) and notes no less than seventeen 'references' in the books (ie usually pictures of events that occurred there) -- this is not really surprising as it is the main terminus station and loco shed on the island. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but I'd happily defer to EdJogg for anything Thomas)

We clearly need an overall article at Fictional Locations (The Railway Series) for anything too minor otherwise, but I'd see Tidmouth as sufficiently important to justify an individual article. I do like the idea of the split ___location articles though, if the books & TV are really so far apart. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per EdJogg's fair and dispassionate reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fictional locations in The Railway Series. Tidmouth's individual article is currently in a bad wiki shape (not establishing WP:NOTABILITY in the article, major WP:IN-UNIVERSE problems, stubby), but as long as a ___location list exists, it's usually best to try a merge/redirect instead of deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Mankin

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

As far as I can tell unnotable. (h-index=10 and total citations=215 accoding to google scholar, which is a less than stellar impact for a theoretical physicist of his age with a permanent position.) TimothyRias (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable even if all claims are true. EEng (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think his being awarded the Estonian Physical Society 2002 EPS Award (see Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Physics and Mathematics Jun 2002 p124) should be sufficient for WP:Prof 2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (Msrasnw (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to me that

The Estonian Physical Society is Estonia's national society for Physicists (This is indicated by it being recognised by/affiliated to the Estonian Academy of Sciences and to the European Physical Society

Mankin was awarded their prize - cited to an Estonian Academy of Sciences journal.

What is the source of doubt about this meeting WP:Prof #2 Highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

We'd first need a reliable source to show that he actually recieved said award.TimothyRias (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Physics and Mathematics Jun 2002 p124 OK? Here also is the list of award winners on the Estonian Physical Society (EFS) site - and a description of the award! (Msrasnw (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

About the first source. No, it isn't since that only states that he was nominated for the prize, whatever that may mean. The other two sources are in Estonian, so I cannot really verify what they say. Although, it appears that the second one is indeed a list of winners.TimothyRias (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TimothyRias, I have added the EPS's Aastapreemia laureaatide nimekiri (Translatable as Award Winners List) to the article. Is it OK now or do you think Xxnathippe's concerns are not sufficiently answered by my weak repsonse? That is do we need some direct evidence that Estonia's national physics society's Annual Award is prestigious? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure. At first glance the award doesn't seem that notable.TimothyRias (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination of WP:PROF, criterion #2 requires that we show that the EFS itself is notable.TimothyRias (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Is this not OK for that: The Estonian Physical Society is Estonia's national society for Physicists - This is indicated by it being recognised by/affiliated to the Estonian Academy of Sciences and to the European Physical Society. The Estonian Academy of Sciences is the body recognised by the Estonian gov. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

and also evidence that the award is highly prestigious. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I guess I was hoping a national physics society's Annual Award would be OK - I am not sure how to find a ref to say this is prestigious ..... Oh dear! :) Perhaps it being announced in the Estonian Academy of Sciences's Proceedings could be taken to be indicative of prestige? But this might be clutching at straws! (Msrasnw (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The standing of an award is judged by the standing of its recipients. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. GS cites are low in what is generally a well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The award should be verified to be national or international award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzad.Fatahi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the refs above (and added to the article) sufficient for you? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The list of names establishes (a) that the subject received the award and (b) that the award is not highly prestigious. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: WoS h-index: for what it is worth Web of Science reports 44 articles and a h-index of 11 (Msrasnw (talk) 20:24, 13 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. Courcelles 07:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stepanski

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

Appears to fail the general notability guideline. Asserted References do not assist this article. For example: Google search for "Tony Stepanski" + "Forbes Magazine" results in only a few trivial hits, and no non-trivial hits whatsoever. Shirt58 (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another autobio by a non-notable individual. EEng (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, fails WP:ANYBIO. -- œ ^™ 17:11, 7 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. Courcelles 07:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misfire (Transformers)

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

Extremely minor fictional character without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources = poor notabiity. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:47, 9 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. Courcelles 07:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megazarak

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

Extremely minor fictional character without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Botcon.
Delete One source does not establish notability. Not even sure the one source is RSSlatersteven (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sources even poorer notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:45, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hamed

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

Not notable. Strong suggestion of self-editing by subject of page. Much information is superfluous. Much information lacks a reliable source. Lumin8 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The October 2007 terror raids are of huge popular interest in New Zealand and the trials are going to be happening over the next 12 months, which is going to lead to lots of media coverage (of course, everything is sub justice until then, so there are lots of people who can't say/write stuff at the moment). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The raids are obviously quite notable. Hamed, however, does not appear to be. Ravenswing 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Fairly notable.Hillcountries (talk) 10:50, 5 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, Sandstein 10:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Subject is a BLP and deserves extra attention. None of the comments so far are very useful, as they only assert that the subject is (or is not) notable, but do not address the several sources now in the article and explain why these sources are (or are not) sufficient for notability. Sandstein 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: @Sandstein - 4 out of the 6 cited sources are of low quality. 2 of the sources originate from brief articles in the New Zealand Herald, a respected newspaper. However, the scoop.co.nz source is merely a biased press release, two of the cited links no longer exist (and did not originate from a noteworthy source regardless), and the final link refers to the highly obscure magazine of the little-known New Zealand "Workers' Party" - a party that received 0.04% of the popular vote in the 2008 elections. Due to the low quality of the sources, lack of notability of the subject, and strong possibility of bias and/or self-editing, I stand by my decision to nominate this article for deletion. Lumin8 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case is notable, the individual in question isn't. The main article on the case can easily accommodate those involved and any future developments of note. Jørdan 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think keep Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outside of the raids, seems low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efil's god (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete - Has done nothing notable. Linking to non-existent articles seems more of an attempt to gain notability through his article rather than prove it. Belonging to a few organisations is certainly not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: let the matter rest until the upcoming trials, which media reports suggest are going to do more to show the individuals individually, with separate trails for some. If nothing else, the trials are likely to lead to the publications of more details and the dropping of suppression injunctions. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete - The trials are not scheduled until August, and Hamed is not actually charged with anything notable (i.e. terrorism), he is charged with possessing a firearm. If everyone charged with possessing a firearm had a wikipedia page, wiki would be very crowded. Lumin8 (talk) 12:00, 14 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. Consensus is to keep , but references from Chinese WP should be copied into this article. Rename should be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebeng Passenger Railway

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

Hada Passenger Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hangyong Passenger Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lacking much references to support article; also "expected to be put into service by 2013" means that it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All content is translated from zh:合蚌客运专线, referance is inhertance from Chinese version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably rename - Railway lines are generally accepted as notable and the Chinese WP article appears to have Chinese references with significant coverage.[20][21][22] I don't know about this "Hebeng" name though. I can't find any English character spelling resembling that outside of WP references. The name translates to "mussels" which matches the translated name in the references.[23][24] There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL violation if future projects are confirmed by reliable sources. In this case, it's already under construction. --Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Addition - Keep the second two articles. (the nom added the second two articles after I typed the above). For the same reasons, except neutral on re-naming.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:RAILROAD, but there's currently little to nothing in the article(s) to verify their existence. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires the existence of coverage of a subject, not that the sources be already cited in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to WP:V and WP:MILL. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article topic would "fail" WP:V only if it's impossible to verify. Not only is it possible to verify the existence of this railway, but multiple sources linked in this AfD verify it and demonstrate notability to boot. WP:MILL is an opinion essay. Besides, a high speed rail line connecting major cities is not by any definition a "run of the mill" topic. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hebeng" would appear to be an abbreviation of "Hefei-Bengbu". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're correct. [25] --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even has coverage in English-language sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep railways are generally notable, and there are book sources that can be found on them. Dew Kane (talk) 02:47, 10 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 DMacks (talk · contribs); rationale was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11)" Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCADA GROUPS UAE

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

Couldn't find anything that indicates this is a notable company. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:29, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rewald

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

Possible hoax. No listing of this player at NFL.com nor http://www.pro-football-reference.com (under name and DOB searches). ISBN for the book reference supplied is for a different book. Article creator shares the name of the article subject. Prod removed with a partial google search link given as the reason, but other than a bizarre CIA related story at http://www.kycbs.net/Rewald.htm (which I doubt is a reliable source), I can't see anything that proves notability. The-Pope (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think a bit of the football "career" might not be a hoax, [26], I've been unable to find anything else, and even the dubious CIA story doesn't seem to suggest that he actually played a game at the national level. As there is a lack of sources demonstrating notability under WP:GNG, and the lack of appearances (and verification of those appearances) required by Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football, I don't see an argument for notability. In addition, I'm also somewhat concerned about the potential for WP:COATRACKing the spy material, which would require signficantly more in the way of WP:RS than we have so far to warrant inclusion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per excellent rescue by Pburka, I also will go apply a trout to myself, for a mistaken interpretation of the sources I saw. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless it turns out to be true...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice save, someone's getting a barnstar for that one!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve. Seems to have been the defendant in a sensational court case in the 1980s. Rewald Convicted in Hawaiian Trial Jack Lord tangled in real-life fraud case Press: CIA vs. ABC Ex-Officer Not Guilty In Spy Case Con man Rewald directs a Los Angeles talent agency. Pburka (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article based on some of the sources I identified. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that he is notable - is this now a WP:BLP1E article? Should the real article be about the crime or the company rather than about the person? I see you ~~have~~ had a merge request in the Company->Person direction - I'm thinking it should be merged Person -> Company - only leaving the merge request open for only 7.5 hours isn't very useful, either. I'll leave this AfD open and redirect the Delsort tags to bring in people more used to editing criminal related articles to decide. Reading some of the public comments on one of the supplied sources makes this article a bit of a vandalism target - there seems to be a few people still angry/involved in the case out there. Amazed that the criminal part never made it in the article until now. And Pburka - I'm not doubting your efforts, motives or the reliability of the references you've found - it is just that this is way outside of my normal editing sphere (which is sports or Australian topics), so I'll prefer for others to decide. The-Pope (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you must be convinced of notability? The only thing we're discussing now is whether the article should be named Ron Rewald or Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong. I'll argue that the company is much less interesting than the individual. Ron Rewald was the driving personality behind the company. Sunlin Wong appears to have been sucked in; he immediately pleaded guilty when the house of cards collapsed. Additionally, reliable sources indicate that Rewald's CIA connections predate the company. Additionally, Rewald's history of fraud predates the company. He was already claiming to be a Marquette graduate in the 1960s, as the football sources show. He also had an earlier bankruptcy, but I don't have any more info about it. I think that a quick review of Google news results will show that Rewald was who the press was talking about, not BBRDW. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the extent that there's consensus to move the article to "an article about the event, not the person", I wouldn't use the firm name, it'd be "Ron Rewald investment fraud case" (not quite that), but something that makes it clear that the article subject is about the events (the cons and their related trial and victims). As I read BLP1E, Rewald was a major player in a minor event, and the relevant clause in BLP1E says that in the case where the event is discussed in sources in general via the name of the individual (the example they give is Tank Man), that an article named after the individual may be appropriate. (Struck out material was in error: I was quoting BIO1E, not BLP1E.) More than happy to leave this conversation open longer for additional voices. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm open to arguments about renaming. There is definitely an article worth keeping here, it's just a question of whether it's the person, the company, the fraud case, or several of the above. This was a huge case, and I'm surprised that we have so little about it. cmadler (talk) 13:14, 10 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. No support for deletion, this is with no prejudice to a consensus being reached to do a merge in the already open merge discussion. Davewild (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonine Centre

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

I'm kinda split on this one. While shopping centers of this size usually don't have enough notability, the "ugliest in Europe" awards give it some extra notability that other malls like this don't have. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. May or may not be significant enough for a separate article, but definitely significant for a mention somewhere. Either way, that would be better settled in a merger discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cumbernauld Town Centre. The "awards" are for that building rather than the Antonine. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as BBC and other non-Scottish coverage by reliable third-party sources push this over both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 11:07, 6 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian TV newsreaders year by year

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

Full list is nothing more than WP:OR with no references what-so-ever. Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you are confusing unreferenced with "original research". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful WILLROCKS10 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took the liberty of moving the above !vote, but that's a plain WP:ITSUSEFUL--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and cleanup - the "year by year" is misleading as it's not what you see right away in this massive article. I do believe it is a reasonable stand-alone list subject but the format is a very large mess that needs major editing for cohesion and style.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for cleanup - inconsistent WP:MOS. glutter needs to be streamlined and some sections make more easier to read. --Takamaxa (Talk) 12:59, 7 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) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Network of Alternative Financial Institutions

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

fails WP:ORG. no real indepth coverage, they've hosted a few things but lacking coverage about the organisation itself. [27]. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:18, 6 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. Courcelles 07:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Tech Technicians Football

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

Article is about a high school football program. It's laden with non-neutral wording, such as "Cass Tech has become a must-stop for recruiters," without sources to back it up. Nothing in the article shows that it's particularly notable; there are thousands of prep football programs in the US, but relatively few are notable enough to warrant an article, and nothing here looks any different. It's also far too much detail to merge into the Cass Technical High School article—the table of pro athletes, for example, could be condensed with selected athletes in the Notable alumni section, but not in the length it is currently (and certainly not with the non-free pictures!)—but the title should not remain as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Borderline speedy, high school sports teams are almost never notable. this program looks to have had a number of notable alumni and success- info that can be incorporated into the school's main article. Note: I removed the pictures of the alumni, they all had copyright violations and are up for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools themselves are almost always notable here, athletic programs at high schools are almost never notable. There is no indication here that this program is an exception. I encourage these enthusiastic editors to try another wiki that is better suited for these topics. If one doesn't exist, I'll donate the first five bucks to WikiHighSchoolSports.org if anyone wants to start it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would require a complete rewrite to deal with the NPOV concerns, and then satisfying WP:N is going to be a darn tough road. Some info can be merged into the school's main article, but the rest just doesn't belong here, sadly. There may be a couple of high school football teams that are notable, but it's going to be a rare case indeed and I see no evidence this is one of them. Zachlipton (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrum

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

Unsourced dicdef, WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply use Google Scholar to verify that this is a notable topic with an abundance of reliable sources available. Improve this stub through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about this notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term shouldn't be limited in such a way (dicdef definition), there's a lot of room for creating and interesting article, see i. e. Readings in Educational Psychology, pp. 18-21. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's currently little more than a definition doesn't mean it's got no potential to be an encyclopedia article. In this case, there is plenty of room for expansion.--Korruski^Talk 09:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very worthwhile article but it is very underdeveloped which is no reason to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souces I'm adding 2 sources I found.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I've added them.--Wipsenade (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admin looks like a speedy keep (WP:SNOW) to me as no support for OP and additionally the OPs case is now completely undermined as article is now full of sources.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 6 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. Courcelles 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley (Muppet character)

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

Barkley was never a highly significant character on Sesame Street and he is already listed at List of characters in Sesame Street D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barkley was a pretty major character in the 80s, as the article seems to confirm. The Muppet Wikia article indicates the book "Sesame Street: A Celebration - 40 Years of Life on the Street" (ISBN 1579126383) is a reliable source for this character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable character, as evidenced by his presence on the official site, which only shows a couple dozen of the 1000+ characters seen on the show over the years. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough character. While it's true that he's included in List of Sesame Street characters, so are some other notable characters with articles hardly anyone would suggest deleting. Christine (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street. Relevant information can be placed here and the fanfare left for the external wiki. Jørdan 13:45, 7 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. This kind of article is normally OK if its based on sourced material, since this doesn't seem to be the case I'll remove this one witha note that recreation of a sourced list is permitted Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tayong Dalawa episodes

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

Poorly-referenced listcruft made by an obsessed fan; I know the article may be kept if significant improvements are made, but I don't think that such a list can be considered as notable for inclusion. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I don't think blogspot's a suitable RS, per WP:EL. Blake, the creator could be a Sarahtard like you said, so a check of socks that may have worked on Sarah Geronimo are also worth checking. The only official site I know is the one on multiply, but let's not include that either. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use the real official website as references. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. jojophotos the real TD website, howard? Really. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nah, he just did it out of sarcasm. Blake Gripling (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something screwed up, but I was referring to use the ones on the ABS-CBN website. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still I would think of it as more of a sarcastic comment. But are first-party sources considered reliable and/or acceptable per guidelines? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), an FL, doesn't list references for the plot (as a rule of thumb, plots are unsourced since they can be checked out on TV; see another example on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Plot, it is also unreferenced). You can try contacting the original author and make him switch to the official website's links. If he doesn't, that means this still merits deletion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:07, 14 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BangaBhasha

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

There is quite a bit of discussion on the article talk page as to whether this article has the notability for a page here, so I've bringing this to the wider Wiki community. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ due to the inherent weakness of the nomination. Your job, as nominator, is to thoroughly research the notability if the topic, and if you conclude after due diligence that it is non-notable, bring it to AfD. You need to assert that it is non-notable, rather than equivocating. Otherwise, work on improving the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you should have read the talk page first. Google searches (including -wikipedia) give results that are mostly wiki mirrors, and a handful of discussion board posts. A web page about the project indicates it has been inactive for over a year. All this is mentioned on the talk page. You're supposed to be judging the article, not me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not judging you but rather evaluating your nomination. If you conclude that an article should be deleted, then I request that you say so unambiguously. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read your nomination as indecisive. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cullen328 (talk)
    - Comment Procedural nominations are done all the time, and even if the nomination is somehow a procedural error, it does not disqualify the AfD discussion from going forward. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Comment I was not arguing that the discussion is "disqualified" but rather asking that the nominator state his/her conclusions about the notability of the topic, based on the results of their investigation. That's all. Cullen328 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic question about "Procedural nomination." Let's keep this discussion about the article itself, not about how the nomination occured

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request RoninBK, please refer me to a description (policy or guideline) of exactly what a "procedural nomination" is, and what is intended to accomplish. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to debate policy with you in a venue that is not disruptive to the ongoing AfD process here. As it stands, this request is horribly off-topic. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid procedural nomination - a user on the talk page already argued the article should be deleted but never actually nominated it. I agree with that person's argument and nominated for him. The reasons for deletion are already summarized on the talk page so there is no reason I need to state it a second time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After further thought, reading the talk page and searching through Google, I have decided to change my recommendation, as I can't conclude that the software is notable. I did not intend to be disruptive when expressing my wish for a clear nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm sad to say. (It exists!) The problem is that I can't locate anything on the topic that meets WP:V. I feel bad – wonder if I could do better if I could read Bangla and Hindi – but unless some other sources appear, don't see another option. (I think Indic computing and Hindawi Programming System can continue to mention its existence, but it sure would be nice to have a reference in a secondary source.) --Pnm (talk) 05:26, 7 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hufu

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

The subject fails at notability My76 Strat 04:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination My76 Strat 04:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD, and you're the one who nominated it, so you can't vote twice.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically no one can vote at all, since AfD is not a WP:VOTE. My76Strat's comments will be properly evaluated by the closing administrator. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "non-existent spoof product" with a website that briefly existed for barely a year and is now long gone. No evidence this was even especially notable as a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned up and expanded the existing sources, including a link to the defunct page at the Wayback Machine. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This shit is so cash.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.253.181 (talk • contribs) 09:56, January 12, 2011 (UTC) — 184.15.253.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azuma Yunoki

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

I don't believe this character has the significance for his own page, and the character is properly summarized List of La Corda d'Oro characters D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters. Redirects are cheap and some of the content on the list may have came from the character article. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Gwern (contribs) 21:50 7 January 2011 (GMT)
Redirect to List of La Corda d'Oro characters, there is no reason what so ever for this secondary character to have it's own article. I am going for redirect because there really isnt much to merge that is important, and the summary on the character page should speak for its-self. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 11 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. Courcelles 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Kerekes

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Someone essentially non-notable who for one bizzare reason ends up getting press coverage. At best a minor news story and not a biography in an encyclopedia. E. Fokker (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is more notable than (for example) the drummers in minor bands, students of major scientists and articles on internet memes people have never heard of. This woman is likely going to be discussed and seen in the future. She has met heads of state, been invited to one of the planet's biggest and oldest sports events and been interviewed and reported by virtually every major news agency. If that isn't notable then nothing is.

That is the whole point of notability: are people going to look up to see who she is in the future? In this case she will be discussed in the future and wikipedia needs a biography of her - admittedly more thorough than the one I have written. To delete her page at this time seems self-defeating, especially as she is likely to become a reporter in the future and will need more written about her Torqueing (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot assume future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:BLP1E. If you take away her twitter account she woulld be totally unknown. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A clear cut case of BLP1E. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No real notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cool story. Am sad it doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, so perhaps redirect to 2010–11 Ashes series and include a sentence about what happened in the Media subsection.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:17, 12 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 Coromandel Peninsula. Consensus is merge and redirect to the place; that's its listed in fish Kills seems good, but shouldn't be the main place for these. As a separate article, it isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula

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

Fails notability. This is a trivial news event of no lasting importance, and was probably inspired by the telephone game currently making its way around the Internet claiming that various mass animal deaths are "spooky". Even a year from now, nobody will care about this event, so an encyclopedia article is not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. If this were to, by some chance, become notable later simply undelete it. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ until toxicology report is issued so we can determine the long term impact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula under a new section 'Ecology'(?). It seems like a sensible outcome to me. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - no more than a news report at present - with no evidence of sustained coverage or impact. If there is a long term impact which is reported by reliable sources (following the release of a toxicology report or otherwise) then maybe an article will be warranted. To kept the article based on what might happen would be speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Redirect, although I think it's an unlikely search target there's no harm in keeping the history. Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula or relevant articles. If the toxicology reports become notable, then the article may be recreated. I originally create the article because I could not find its contents covered elsewhere here.Smallman12q (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, if there's a consensus here to merge the material into the ___location article, I don't have any problem with that. I do have an issue with a separate article on the event. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the information to the list of fish kills. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 7 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 Arkansas River. Consensus is merge and redirect to the river; that's its listed in fish Kills seems good, but shouldn't be the main place for these. As a separate article, it isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass death of freshwater drum in the Arkansas River

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

Fails notability. This is a trivial news event of no lasting importance, and was probably inspired by the telephone game currently making its way around the Internet claiming that various mass animal deaths are "spooky". Even a year from now, nobody will care about this event, so an encyclopedia article is not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just added it to the table in Fish kill. It is extremely minor compared to other incidents that don't even have (or perhaps merit) articles. Mention in Fish kill article table ought to be good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems made up/ unnotable. Looks to be related to the above(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula) Sumsum2010·T·C 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Since it occurred a week ago it is difficult to judge the long term impact. The toxicology report isn't even out yet. It has been reported in New York newspapers and on NPR. Unlike the nominator, I don't have a crystal ball to see the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Arkansas River. It is an important information, however, it is too recent for a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It's actually mentioned here. Maybe it could just be moved to the river article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article about the river is a more suitable place for this unfortunate event. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to relevant articles. If the toxicology reports become notable, then the article may be recreated. I originally create the article because I could not find its contents covered elsewhere here.Smallman12q (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, if there's a consensus here to merge the material into the ___location article, I don't have any problem with that. I do have an issue with a separate article on the event. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already merged into fish kill and started bird kill for the recent bird death articles. They never seem to be more than a paragraph each, so lets have one big article listing the occurrences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 7 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. Just needs some cutting down. No need to delete a perfectly good topic. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Pakistan

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

Despite attempts to clean this up, this article remains an unverifiable mess. No RS, no cohesion, PROD declined, August 2010, no improvement since then. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the messy stuff should be deleted, but that still shouldn't be reason to delete the entire article. We can cut it down and leave it as a stub, the topic is worthy of being kept. Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has identified issues with the currect article content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than any reason why we should not have an article on this subject. If you want sources you could start with the chapters on the topic in The Cambridge guide to Asian theatre (ISBN 9780521588225) and The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre (ISBN 9780415059336). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 7 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. sandsteins comment about V and sources is very compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York

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

There is an identical article at "Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_the_United_States". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Moreover, these Representative Offices are commercial entities. Their staff only have business visas and none of their staff have diplomatic visas. These two offices are commercial entities passing themselves off as diplomatic entities and they are getting free advertising on Wikipedia. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, then the answer would simply to be to turn one or the other into a redirect. The other article (which is actually at Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_to_the_United_States) is marginally diffferent, however - enough so that a simple redirect may not be the best solution. A merger of the two articles may be the best answer unless there are significant differences which can be made between them. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that two articles with similar (almost identical) content on the same subject are not necessary. Moreover, these Representative Offices are commercial entities and neither have diplomatic status. Their presence on Wikipedia promotes the business called "TRNC". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles are not on the same subject. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States is about the mission to the United States in Wahington, but Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in New York is about the mission to the United Nations, which just happens to have its headquarters in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the titles should say so. And what about the commercial status (since none of the staff at either of these Representative Offices have diplomatic visas, they are in the United States with business visas, these offices are passing themselves off as diplomatic entities, which they are not. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Phil Bridger's clarification above. The diplomatic non-status of the institution is of course quite irrelevant to this deletion debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia makes it quite clear that commercial entities are not permitted to promote themselves on Wikipedia. There is duplication and this commercial entity passes itself off as a diplomatic entity. Would you like me to raise a separate deletion request concerning its commercial status? This I can do. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against having articles about commercial entities on Wikipedia, and our article does not claim that this is an officially-recognised diplomatic entity. Whether this mission makes such claims outside of Wikipedia is immaterial to the question of whether we should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the first sentence in the article says "The Representative Office of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in New York City is the de facto mission of the TRNC to the United Nations Organization (as well as a de facto Consulate-General)." Does that sound like a commercial organisation to you? To me it looks like Wikipedia not only wholly applauds the passing-off of these Representative Offices as diplomatic entities but encourages the passing-off of these commercial entities as diplomatic offices. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase de facto makes it clear that this is not a legally recognised diplomatic mission. And, anyway, your whole argument here is based on an issue of content, which can be fixed by editing. The issue that hasn't been settled is whether this mission passes our notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the fact that the entity is being sued in a Class Action makes it notable enough! Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept that the subject is "notable enough" then why are you asking for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning the necessity for there being an article per Representative Office of the TRNC which also happens to be a commercial entity. Why do you need two articles for these Representative Offices? They are representing the same thing. They are "de facto" doing the same thing. Bearing in mind that whatever the "de facto" they are doing neither are recognised by the United States or the United Nations and there are no diplomatic conversations going on between any of them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Fut Perf has just rem'd the section about the Class Action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_New_York

Apparently, Fut Perf doesn't think that the Class Action is notable enough and that it should not be included in any mention of these offices. Well, that puts the notability back in question. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:22, 4 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, Sandstein 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I read through both and they are clearly different. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are they different? They are both representative offices of a single commercial entity. Both are setup with staff with business visas. Neither has any diplomatic staff. Nor are any of the staff recognised in any diplomatic capacity by the United States or the United Nations. Their only differences are "window-dressing" that they use to pass off their unearned "de-facto" diplomatic status of doing everything except diplomacy. I say again. Why is it necessary to have two articles for two representative offices of a single commercial entity? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, otherwise delete: If it is a representation to the United Nations, then I vote for renaming it so that the name reflect the content. Otherwise there is lack of notability and it can go as a subsection in the main article. -- Ashot ^(talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate your input on this. The New York office purports to interface to the United Nations. However, that is a sham since the United Nations does not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" nor does it recognise the commercial entity that is called the "TRNC" with "Representative Offices" in New York and Washington. The only thing that is notable about these "Representative Offices" is the pending Class Action against them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I can understand your motives (and partly share them). However my position is that if there is something of interest to a considerable number of people (regardless of who those people are), Wikipedia should have an article about it. All other info (like legal status, nature of activities, etc.) may be then incorporated within the article so that the reader is aware of it. I prefer to look at Wikipedia not with eyes of a lawyer or judge, but of a person who may once need to learn the information. -- Ashot ^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no reason that I can think of as to why these "Representative Offices" cannot be listed together in one article. Functionally they are no different. Diplomatically they are impotent. Commercially they are one entity. Just because one office claims to interface to the government of the United States and the other office claims to interface to the United Nations (when neither does in actuality) is not sufficient reason to have two separate articles for these offices. As far as my motivations are concerned I have already achieved my objective which is to make sure that everybody knows all of the above (whether or not the Wikipedia community deletes one of the articles or not, is by the by, it still remains that the knowledge that these offices are a sham is now in the public ___domain). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having been asked for my opinion. let me say that the current inclusion of these articles in the displayed box Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus strongly suggests that Wikipedia is claiming diplomatic status for this office, which is not the case. The box needs to be dropped, and the commercial nature of this office carefully noted in the text. As for notability, there are many Wikipedia pages covering equally insignificant subjects.--Wetman (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cause the status of TRNC is illegal in Cyprus, against official Cypriot government, and a plenitude of articles related to it aims only to the promotion of TRNC. They can be listed together in one article. There is no value-added by listing both offices in separate articles, something that definetely under-value Wikipedia. Thank you.Greco22 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if you want them treated together, you can't vote "delete", what you want is a "merge". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same difference. I will agree to Delete or Merge as long as the Class Action is mentioned in the merged article because there is nothing else that is notable about these "Representative Offices". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We allow individual pages on embassies and consulates on Wikipedia. The fact that the "TRNC" is not recognized by any country except Turkey isn't really an issue here, as we also have articles on a variety of other non-recognized de facto embassies, such as e.g. the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and others. Despite not being afforded diplomatic immunity these do play an important role in representing their respective countries, and fulfill many of the consular functions, such as issuing passports and notarizing documents, that official embassies do.

Reading the discussion above I would hope that editors would put more effort into distinguishing between their personal beliefs regarding the legitimacy of the "TRNC" and the issue at hand - whether or not an entity is sufficiently notable to be covered here. Something can be completly illegitimate, morally wrong and unjustified, and still deserve an article on Wikipedia - in fact we have quite a number of such articles. The fact that and article exists is neither an endorsement of nor a justification of its subject.

If the text in the article(s) as such have information in them that is deemed false, then those facts should be corrected but this should not be cause to delete the entire article. Travelbird (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Personal beliefs" have nothing to do with it. There is no reason why two "Representative Offices" that are part of the same commercial entity cannot be written about in one article. The offices cannot be distinguished with the claim that one interfaces diplomatically to the United States and the other interfaces diplomatically with the United Nations because neither have any diplomatic relations with the United States or the United Nations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These offices are not commercial entities. And the people working there are not businessmen despite having a business visa, just in the same way that William Stanton is not a social worker, despite legally being the head of a registered non-profit organization (the American Institute in Taiwan), which also interfaces with the Taiwanese government despite not having diplomatic relations with it. It +is+ possible to talk to meet one another despite not having diplomatic relations! Travelbird (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These offices are a commercial entity without any doubt whatsoever. The official positions of the United States and the United Nations are that there are no diplomatic relations or conversations going on between them and the "TRNC" period. Would you care to provide citations concerning these unofficial diplomatic communications? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient citations at North Cyprus to accept that the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) is a de facto state (i.e. despite a lack of official recognition by other governments and world organizations, the geographical area known as North Cyprus is effectively governed by an entity called the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus). Because this entity seeks recognition in an international community, they maintain missions in key locations, including New York (where they can interface with the United Nations) and Washington DC. Whether or not these missions have official diplomatic status is irrelevant to their notability -- the missions exist, and they have separate purposes and separate agendas and can easily support separate articles. Arguments to the contrary reflect a non-neutral viewpoint regarding the legitimacy of TRNC's aims and objectives. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't make any difference whatseover what their purposes and agendas are. They cannot achieve their purposes or agendas because they are not diplomatic entities and have no formal diplomatic relations. You could place a small citrus fruit in the middle of Central Park and call it a diplomatic mission and it will be just as effective as either of these "missions". They are an ineffective business entity that can just as easily be discussed in a single article. I am not disputing notability since I believe that the pending Class Action makes this business entity notable. But there is only one business entity and as such there should be only one article. You wouldn't write an article for every single building owned by Coca Cola. My opinion is not a non-neutral POV. Show me where all of the notable offices of Coca Cola are listed. There are far more notable offices of the business entity called Coca Cola than there are of the business entity called the TRNC. Why don't they get equal consideration? What these "missions" claim to be doing and what they are doing is as big as the difference between the company called Coca Cola and the small citrus fruit in Central Park. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V; after two weeks on AFD the article has still zero sources and is thus unverifiable as well as presumably non-notable. That is a much more serious problem, in Wikipedia terms, than any speculation about the subject's official status or lack thereof. Sandstein 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on references: Funnily enough I had placed a whole bunch of references in the article concerning the Class Action and Fut Perf deleted all of it. Now Travelbird has listed one reference from the TRNC PIO. The TRNC has given itself a reference. Any reference from the Republic of Turkey or the "TRNC", concerning this subject, is a self-reference. As I have noted before only the Class Action makes this article notable. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:02, 14 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological Urbanism

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

Appears to be an article existing only to call attention to this new term. This is a "project" that was created in May 2010 at Harvard. Almost all the references are from Harvard, and while the article states the book has been reviewed, the references do not really prove this. (And a link to a blog does not suffice as a reliable source. Until there can be reliable neutral, third-party sources, I do not think this article deserves inclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about two things, the book entitle Ecological Urbanism, and the subject - taught at multiple colleges. All of this is referenced. The book by itself has enough third party reviews to warrent inclusion. Add in the topic of it now being a college course, and I think there should be no question in the notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is unclear as to what they're talking about: the book or the "project". This needs clarity. But are there other sources other than just Harvard? — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is very clear in the article that "Ecological urbanism is a project started at Harvard University Graduate School of Design, including a book, conference and exhibition"--Cuttingedgethinking (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)— Cuttingedgethinking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Keep These references were made within the text. Expanding these references post-haste might be suggested as well as listing others:

"The phrase appeared in April 2003 at a conference at the University of Oregon,[1] and again in 2006 in a paper by Jeffrey Hou.[2] The phrase was used by Mohsen Mostafavi in 2007 in Intervention Architecture[3] and in a lecture at the Canadian Centre for Architecture,[4]" ....Good luck to you.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search shows the term used elsewhere as well. Is the coverage for the book and the conference at Harvard notable? Is it just local papers or do those elsewhere give it adequate coverage? Can anyone who works at Harvard or go to school there publish a book and have a conference about it, getting mention for this in the school's paper as well as the local newspaper? Has the book been reviewed in any reliable sources? Metropolis Magazine is a free magazine and the other two places mentioned don't have Wikipedia articles about them, so I have no idea if they are reliable or not. Getting printed in a free magazine which is mostly ads, doesn't really count towards your notability. Dream Focus 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references seem adequate, especially the academic courses on it, to establish it as a significant approach or subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 14 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tandy

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

I can't find any sources to suggest that this actor is notable, and I cannot verify an appearance in Eastenders or the existence of the character he supposedly played.

The article was recently edited by an IP connected to a prolific hoaxer, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User_creating_apparent_hoax_articles. I don't know if that makes this more suspect, but it's what drew my attention to the article anyhow. Fences&Windows 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not fully convinced this is a hoax. If so it stretches to IMDB and eBay, which is either awfully ambitious for a hoaxer or someone mistakenly added that based on bad info here. That said though, it seems a case where even the basic info is tough to verify, much less compose a full biography supported by reliable sources (neither IMDB or eBay are, obviously). Even with the hoax issue set aside, we have a fellow with an acting career supposedly spanning five decades but who apparently never had a susbstantial part, and played almost exclusively unnamed roles (doorman, gateman, man in car, various unnamed cops). If that's true I bet he's had some great times and likely a lot of interesting stories about his brushes with show biz, but I'd also say he's solidly out of scope for a general interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just happy to see that he existed, thanks! That EBay photo is enough for me to know he was real. Notable - no way. Fences&Windows 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played a regular character in EastEnders for two years, so yes he did have a substantial role in at least one programme in the 1980s, and at a time when the show was getting around 25 million viewers an episode, which is huge for the UK. He may not be known by people today and he may not have been written about in the press since the advent of the Internet, but that does not mean he is not notable as an actor.GunGagdin ^Moan 04:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify his role in Eastenders using reliable sources, please? Even if he was in that role, it was not substantial as it left no trace behind among fans or the media. No blogs, books, news articles or web pages talk about him or the character. Web searches are very good at picking up even slight traces of TV actors, and there's nothing of Tandy out there outside us, eBay and IMDB, Wikipedia mirrors and directory sites. Fences&Windows 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only provide off-line sources in books. But just because he has not been written about now, does not mean he was not notable during the 80s while he was in EE. Sadly sources from that era will not be easily available, but it doesnt mean there arent any. I have no passion for keeping the article to be honest, but just wanted to add that the character is known among older fans and, given the high ratings of the show during his stint and the red-top obsession with EastEnders at that time as well as his two year duration, I think it's highly unlikely that the actor was not referenced in the press during his two years. I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time arguing to keep the article because as I said above, I am not too bothered if it stays or not as it says nothing that IMDB hasnt already said, but just felt that a different perspective may be useful.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Offline sources to books is perfectly fine with Wikipedia. Specially for someone whose career predates the internet by several decades. Can you add them to the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is a hoax, since he is listed at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0849208/ and surely in the credits of everything he has been in. He had enough appearances in Eastenders to count as notable. Since most of his work was done in decades past, hard to know what role he played in them, and if it was just a bit part or something significant. Dream Focus 03:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I think he's just notable enough. Needs better referencing though. Fences and windows makes a good point but the internet's slightly less comprehensive for actors who weren't on screen in the last decade or so. When Tandy was in Eastenders, the internet looked like this. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: squeaks by WP:BIO. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of his roles look decidedly minor, and in the absence of any real coverage we simply don't have a basis for an article.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If it's a hoax, it's a very elaborate one. If not, there's enough coverage to squeak past 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:43, 10 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. WP:CSD G4 and G5 This article has been recreated 11 times by User:Melissadu, as Sarona Reiher or Sarona Snuka, using her own account and various sockpuppets. This is simply the latest sockpuppet recreation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarona Reiher

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:ATHLETE. Was previously deleted as a result of a previous deletion discussion. Article should have been Speedy deleted as it appears to be the same article with a couple of different non-substantial references; however, the CSD was removed by another editor. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 6 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. Courcelles 07:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Karofsky

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

Marginally notable individual, half the article is about an unnotable event. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article violates our policy on biographies of living people. This article seems to have been written to publicize a scandal. It also violates our policy on articles about one event. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Cullen328 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Not seeing any claim of notability here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information Control..... What an absolute shame. Power certainly corrupts and the power granted to the socially inept and friendless loners who wiki-monitor this site is limitless and often scary. Can we propose that these editors be renamed The Wiki-Ministry of Information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICENICE (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 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. Courcelles 07:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crosman Air Mag C11

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

Delete: Article on non-notable random airsoft guns. Fails to meet WP:N by a long shot. The^FSAviator • T 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these page for deletion for the same reason as above:

Delete for lack of obvious notability. The sourcing is flawed as well, one article is sourced to myspace, for example. There might be salvageable information, and that could possibly be merged over to Crosman, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: "long shot"... I see what you did there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CA 249 listed above is not an airsoft gun but a redirect. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CA 249 may be a redirect, but the article proposed above is CA249, which isn't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix'd. No space was in the title.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Community consensus is that airsoft guns are rarely notable, and none of these articles provide either a claim of notability or significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:43, 6 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijith (Actor)

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

I reviewed this new article and tagged it to notify the author what was required to keep it from deletion but they simply removed the tags without improving the article. Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines, article is not referenced at all, one external link to youtube. Content is unverifiable due to the above. Apparent COI and NPOV problems. Article falls just short of CSD guidelines, and I see little point PRODing based on the authors actions so far. Pol430 talk to me 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up the article and removed the POV entries and undue praise. I could not find much coverage of him in english language sources. Will search and add if i can find any sources in Kannada language. --Nayvik (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good faith in the efforts for cleanup and sourcing provided by User:Nayvik. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable even if all claims are true. Subject or someone close to him appears to be involved in the article, so if he or she can't add notability-demonstrating material by now, it's their own damn fault. EEng (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not reach article worthy level of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:47, 9 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 William Knox D'Arcy. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Birkbeck

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED. simply being married to someone notable doesn't qualify you for an article. the only coverage i could find was in gbooks which merely confirmed that she married someone famous. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why would we delete when merging into the husband would preserve the information. That is what we usually do when a relative isn't notable on their own. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Richard Arthur Norton. There is no need to use the admin tools to fix this problem. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:53, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inbaal

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

Media witch who fails to meet WP:BIO - specifically "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Only one source given, to a Sun article. Page has been tagged as needing better sources for a year now with no improvement. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source given seems to be the result of a public relations campaign in support of a psychic TV show. A Google search results in one similar but briefer passing reference. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and write a concise, objective bio from reliable sources. Fair number of good sources, she seems to be a media personality who has some notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven links to the sources identified, three of which are random hits to entirely other subjects. Of the four remaining, one is a carbon copy of a second, leaving three. Of the three, one is the Sun newspaper article which deals at some length but appears to be written from a press release. A second (the one duplicated) mentions her once in passing. The third source is a Daily Mail online 'expose' which again mentions her briefly as fraudulent. I don't myself believe these three sources establish WP:N but if the article is a Keep I'll certainly rewrite it to reflect all three. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at her notability more as a TV performer [28] than supposed psychic, but given that coverage is admittedly spotty, I'll change to a weak keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've included the Reuters mention to add a little bit to her biographical history. I also uncovered a listing of her speaking engagements at a large pagan festival in England, and a cover story for a fairly significant Pagan publication. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:34, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Round

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

WP:PROMO by User:T4Interactive (or Transform Interactive, the agency behind jeffreyround.com). Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR as well. —bender235 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to AGF here. I believe there are enough reviews out there by independent secondary sources to satisfy WP:BASIC. I'll add these to the articles talk page. I'd also suggest this article be revised for NPOV. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: seems notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:12, 6 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. Courcelles 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua

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

Page contains little more than a copy of Template:Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua making it useless to include this page. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a page whose only contents are a template is useless. JIP | Talk 08:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more to say about Yar'Adua's cabinet between 2007 and 2010 than a simple list of ministers and dates. I believe there were some political upheavals in Nigeria during this period, and the cabinet was not entirely stable. Before nominating, the nominator could perhaps have made an effort to expand the page, or at least to check whether that was possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concern of the nominator and seconder has been addressed without any need for an administrator to hit the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 1 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have here is just a news report of actions by the president and his cabinet members. An article on the role of the president of Nigeria's cabinet in general might be a good idea. However just a report on who got hired and fired and who did what runs afoul of WP's "not news" policy. A brief summary of the events (explaining their importance) could be included in articles on the history of the country and in the bio of Mr. Yar'Adua. Borock (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers will be interested in knowing who was in the cabinet of Yar'Adua and what happened during its term. This article gives them that information in the same way that Blair ministry, Brown Ministry and Cameron Ministry gives information about the equivalent cabinets in the United Kingdom. I will not comment on which country is more important today. The content is well-sourced, and the subject is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect or Delete~~ , unless there's something in the history that needs to be preserved. I've gone ahead and merged these (well-sourced) news items into the article about President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, including all citations to verifiable sources. Contrary to what the title suggests, this is not a listing of members of a presidential cabinet, but about several shakeups in the cabinet, including their dismissal by the acting President a couple of months before President Yar'Adua passed away. I praise the author for providing good information on the administration of Nigerian President Yar'Adua, but it doesn't need to be a separate article. Mandsford 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replicated the information from Template:Cabinet of President Umaru Yar'Adua into this article, and have dropped the template from the article. There is no difference in what the reader would see. Is this an improvement? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep As far as I'm concerned, it's an improvement that makes the article consistent with the other articles we have about a particular president's administration. I realize now that I didn't see the template, perhaps because it was one of those that has to be clicked to be displayed. I'll go ahead and revert my changes. Mandsford 13:49, 6 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. Courcelles 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Fairfax

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

WP:PROMO by User:T4Interactive (or Transform Interactive, the agency behind jeffreyround.com) —bender235 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not demonstrated in the article. And it's a fictional character, to boot. PK T(alk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:28, 12 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESERVOIR

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

Ephemeral project. Although individual components may be notable, these temporary collaborations rarely are. At this point, there is not a single source establishing notability, the sources provided are just simple listings of projects. Does not meet WP:GNG, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Crusio (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have edited this article to update it to the current state of RESERVOIR - i.e. the article now reflects the actual abilities rather than speculating where the project will be down the road.

RESERVOIR is currently an important research project - it is considered by the sponsoring European Commission as its flagship project in Cloud Computing due to the breakthrough ideas and actual progress the project has made. RESERVOIR has over 50 published papers to its credit, and has put on over 70 presentations and demonstrations of its technology, so while the project may be ephemeral, it currently stands at the forefront of research and innovation in the world of Cloud Computing. 192.114.107.4 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011

Comment I do not doubt that people collaborating under this project have made valuable contributions (both in print and as "presentations and demonstrations"). However, individual grants like this are rarely notable: just have a look at NIH Reporter to see how many grants (including "center-" and "project-grants") NIH gives yearly and then go see how many of those ever got an article. Only if you can come up with reliable sources that show this project has been noted as a project, would an article here be justified. For the moment, all we have is some directory listings and in-passing mentions. --Crusio (talk) 09:57, 4 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I noticed this pay source was recently added to the article. It seems like it may provide substantial coverage. Does anyone have access to the article in order to verify that? (If that source is unsubstantial, delete.) --Pnm (talk) 04:13, 12 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. Courcelles 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kawalit

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances and significant coverage, he fails all notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 7 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) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Jung

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at the professional level of the sport Spiderone 20:45, 9 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) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayin Jeffers

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 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, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the player hasn't reached a level that can be considered notable. PK T(alk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having only played in semi-pro leagues, he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 8 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) 03:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Antonini

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 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) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability made Spiderone 07:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having only ever played in the non-fully pro CSL, he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 8 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) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Serrano

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 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) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The CSL is not fully pro, and he fails WP:GNG. Therefore he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable sportsperson. E. Fokker (talk) 21:21, 12 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) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katsap

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just an article about the meaning and usage of a word. This was recognized by the person closing the first AfD, but was closed as "no consensus" with the hope it might "expand." Which has not happened, and if it did would result in an article called something like "Prejudice against Russians in Eastern Europe," not "Katsap."

Transwiki to Wiktionary, which doesn't currently have an entry for "Katsap". Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has. It is at wikt:кацап#Ukrainian. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick Google books search suggests that either "katsap" or "Katsap" is used in English-language texts. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, Wiktionary has the Ukrainian word in the proper alphabet for the Ukrainian language, per project (and indeed ordinary dictionary) standards. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but my point is that this appears to be a word, apparently borrowed from Ukrainian, that is used as an English word in English books in the Latin alphabet. Wiktionary does not have this English word, and the contents of this article on the English Wikipedia could be transwikied to form the basis of the English Wiktionary entry for the English word. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Article does not extend beyond a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article also describes etymology of the word (I never knew it before). To be logical, if we keep Khokhol, we should also keep "Katsap" and Pindos (another article currently in AfD). Biophys (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DICTIONARY. Discussion of etymology is primarily the task of a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hold strong opinion about this. Being ethnic Russian myself, I certainly do not mind removing ethic slur about Russians that is centuries old. Biophys (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki what's salvageable to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so dictionary definitions (of which etymology is a part) do not belong. Khokhol is different in this regard as the article deals mainly with the haircut style.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2011; 21:40 (UTC)

Delete delete per WP:NOTDIC and transwiki wo wiktionary Neptune 123 (talk) 05:41, 12 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. Courcelles 06:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. J. Bryant

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

Arkansas political candidate, well sourced to local news, which have mostly covered him for his youth. PROD contested by IP, so I'm referring this to the community for discussion: do these sources establish notability? I'm remaining Neutral. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nope. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and any coverage of him is strictly local and is a WP:ONEEVENT deal. Article created by a SPA with no other edits save for inserting Bryant in the hometown article, and I suspect COI violation given the cheerleading tone of the article. Ravenswing 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article shouldnt be deleted. One of seven statewide offices is a major story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.8.111 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — 74.194.8.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLITICIANS#Politicians point 2 refers to a major amount of press coverage which did occur because of this candidate's age and ideas. Also, because he won an uphill battle against a veteran legislator. The notability also isn't temporary. The candidate will always be a reference point in future stories about young candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.103.11.109 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — 108.103.11.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Failed candidates for statewide office are not automatically notable, and the coverage found is strictly about the election - not about him. Incidentally, the SPAs have added his name to half a dozen other articles; if he is found to be non-notable, somebody might want to clean those out. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been edited to cite sources. Sandstein 07:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 Angels

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

Non-notable, unsourced, no third party coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Professor (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination was not completed until 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC). —Farix (t | c) 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is obscure for two reasons: it was never released in the US and it was apparently "CRAP!!" to quote one review. But neither is necessarily a cause for deletion. I'm generally comfortable assuming Japanese-language print sources exist for virtually any anime series, as anime and manga are pretty well covered by the media there. This looks like it might be a place to start as far as sources go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the case as Starblind notes above, I would be reluctant to recommend deletion without the input from editors knowledgeable about anime, and who is also knowledgeable about reliable sources for anime. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:18, 2 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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's real, seems to be a fairly significant production (wasn't just some guy who drew on napkins and waved them in front of a camera), and that's a poor but somewhat accurate description for our inclusion criteria for anime films. The article just needs work. Everything needs work. Wikipedia is really big. I need to go to sleep. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I gave the article a cleanup,[29] and agree with Andrew Lenahan. Japanese-language sources exist for just about every anime film, even the total crap. We can ask that Japanese reading Wikipedians with access to such assist in additional sourcing. What can be fixed is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the others. Major production, sure to get coverage. Dream Focus 07:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the film may have been released, with only the single review, it does not pass WP:NOTE. I've removed the references to ANN's encyclopedia because it is not a reliable source because the content is user generated with almost no editorial oversight or even basic fact-checking. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 10 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 R. Kelly discography. NW (Talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 Play: 4th Quarter

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

This album is not notable as it was shelved it received just two comments from critics. it has an unsourced track listing and many other unsourced claims. Per WP:NALBUMS a short paragraph at the artist's page would suffice and be more appropriate than this independent article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to R._Kelly_discography#Mixtapes. An internet mixtape would not be notable, and that's what this eventually devolved into, even if it was originally a proper album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R. Kelly discography#Albums. I wouldn't suggest a redirect to the "mixtapes" subheading because shelved albums aren't mixtapes. In addition, the reference to the supposed track listing doesn't even link to an R. Kelly album; it links to a Monica album. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never released. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:47, 9 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. Delete and redirect to Steady state (disambiguation), with appropriate change of wording there; based on a google translation of the Dutch article there is no evidence it is even a significant concept within his theory. I urge someone to do a proper translation of that article, bercause it seems he is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steady State Model

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

Bizzare article which appears to be an instruction manual on how to efficiently manufacture a fighter aircraft. "Steady state model" is a fairly common phrase, so searching for sources leads to a lot of results, some of which may or may not refer to the concept relating to the manufacturing of fighter aircraft. This may or may not be a notable topic, but even if it can be shown to be a notable topic, the article would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Steady State theory. I too can't see how this article can be used as the basis of an encyclopaedic treatment of whatever the subject is (a business model for manufacturing?); Steady state model redirects to Steady State theory, so it would make sense for this title to do so as well; but we don't need the history to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Jan in 't Veld, the inventor of this Steady State Model appears to have published almost exclusively in Dutch – he died while working on a translation of his apparently successful book Analyse van organisatieproblemen (ISBN 9010105644) in which the SSM was introduced – it may be hard to find reliable non-Dutch sources, but there seems to be some significant coverage in: Hans P. M. Veeke, Jaap A. Ottjes and Gabriël Lodewijks (2008). The Delft Systems Approach: Analysis and Design of Industrial Systems. Springer. ISBN 978-1-84800-176-3. I don't know if this counts as "independent of the subject", though; the "Delft Systems Approach" was invented by in 't Veld (as the preface states: "This book is a tribute to Prof. Jan in 't Veld, who is the real founder of the Delft Systems Approach"), and the authors are affiliated with Delft University and appear to be former students of in 't Veld. --Lambiam 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the "Delft Systems Approach" the same as the "Steady State Model"? If so, which would be the better title? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this in any detail, but my impression is that what is called the Delft Systems Approach comprises a collection of concepts, models, and paradigms, of which the Steady State Model is one of the components. If an article could be written about the Delft Systems Approach, into which this article could be merged, that would be an elegant solution, but the amount of usable source material does not look promising. Alternatively, someone knowing Dutch well might be able to translate nl:Jan in 't Veld, which then would be a plausible merge target. (I agree, though, that the primary meaning of "Steady State Model" should be Steady State theory; that could be solved by a {{Redirect}} hatnote over there.) --Lambiam 09:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this does appear to be the correct name for the general topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke? --Lambiam 09:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A slip of the mouse, actually... (blush) Jclemens-public (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 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) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be an essay, instruction manual, or original research. In any case the article does not provide sufficient context to make it clear what topic the article is intended to cover, and therefore it may be incapable of meaningful expansion by other editors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article has issues, the only real showstopper is the possible lack of notability; the other defects can in principle be fixed. --Lambiam 02:39, 10 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 (NAC) E. Fokker (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Dancesport Club

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

Non-notable university sports club ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (COI warning - I used to be an officer in the equivalent Cambridge club, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand Wikipedia policies) The club has been subject to coverage by reliable sources (even though they aren't referenced in the article). For example,

this article from "The Times" about the men getting sporting colours.
this article in the Telegraph
this BBC feature about the match vs Cambridge
this television documentary
this article and this one about a 1998 controversy when an Oxford student wanted to dance for Cambridge.

I am sure that, with enough time, I could dig out other independent references as well (as well as a huge number from student newpapers etc). Bluap (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the above sources to the article, and have also found more coverage in a 1989 women's magazine. I hope that 3 national newspapers, 1 regional newspaper, 1 glossy magazine, 1 regional new website, and 1 television documentary is enough to give notability. I should point out that this is ongoing coverage over a period of more than 15 years, not simply coverage of a single news item. Bluap (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources adequately fulfil WP:RS to assert notability. Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 2 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) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources and material to pass WP's standards of notability. A person reading the article will definitely know more about the subject than before. Borock (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks as if the sources now get it over the line. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:55, 6 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.