Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 1

< 28 February	2 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArizonaIX

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

Does not establish any notability. Only source is a press release. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable sources to establish enough notability. One press relase isn't enough, if there's nothing else. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herkimer Street, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

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

A ~2.5km residential street in Hamilton, Ontario. Here is the Google map. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page needs more info to be of use. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of roads in Hamilton, Ontario. 700 GBooks hits and 340 on GNews, but not one appeared to offer any genuine coverage of the street itself. No sign that it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Varma

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

Fixing incomplete nomination by Bdeepu (talk · contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see on which grounds this article should be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why "fix" a nomination when there is no given rationale? He is one of India's most recognized bloggers as evidenced by coverage in this book. Indian Express confirms that, and confirms his journalism award. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides being one of the most recognised indian bloggers, he meets WP:ANYBIO as a Bastiat prize winner,
Keep, per above, I think he seems to qualify as a notable person. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bajalta California

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

This term has next to no currency. The article itself acknowledges that nearly all references to this term in sources originate with a single paper. Dohn joe (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and comment: I suggested at one point (at Talk:Bajalta California) that the article be rewritten to be about the book (Postborder City: Cultural Spaces of Bajalta California), or at least rewrite the lede to make clearer that the whole concept is from the book. This seems a better solution than just deleting, as it's an interesting concept. I've never seen the book. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with renaming the article and having it be about the book. I agree that it's an interesting concept, but concepts shouldn't be presented as actual subjects with their own articles. Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; This article focuses on the concept and elaborates on it as well, to me, I seemed that the article explained in the beginning that it was in reference to the book, which has since been accepted and distributed across many educational and economic institutions as any search of "Bajalta" will show. Other than that, this article should stay named as so, because it is the most common name, the book title should redirect here possible. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a neologism. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search for the term brings just under 6K hits, (under 5k when you remove wikipedia)most referring to a single book which uses the term. A news search brings up three hits for the use of the term, two referring to said book. Perhaps the book itself is notable, the term is definitely not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that the article is being reoriented to now focus on the concept and not the area as a defined geographical eegion. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Move to Bajalta California (geography and urban planning) Here is Michael Dear's job title, professor of geography and urban planning. I have added to the Bibliography section at Bajalta California about seven authors who have discussed the concept. And I do say, "concept", Dear himself says in 2005, "This enormous agglomeration of people and activities has no name." I've also added the article as a "See also" at Urbanism, and changed the first sentence of the article to say that this is a concept. Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PRECISION seems to say that parenthetical additions to titles should only used when disambiguation (not clarification) is necessary. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that for five years people have been adding to this article as if it was a geography article and that this is one of the reasons for the AfD. Looking at WP:Precision, I see the words, "titles are expected to use names and terms that are...as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The ambiguity is the confusion between the urbanism concept and a geographical area. "<T>he choice between <article titles> is made by consensus." Beyond that, is it your point that we should delete the article because of the clarity of the name, or are you saying you'd agree now to keep the article with the present name and the change to the first sentence? I'd be ok if the article title was Bajalta California (urbanism). Unscintillating (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the article should be deleted. What I meant was if the article was kept, I would disagree with your proposed move. Any clarification needed could be made in the first sentence, as "concise titles are generally preferred." --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess that means that you still consider the term to be a neologism, even after the secondary sources I documented. If the title is not moved, then my !vote is Keep. Unscintillating (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Phillips

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

Contested PROD. Sources search pulls up nothing that makes me think this individual sufficiently passes WP:BIO, specicially in depth coverage. The one independant source cited *("Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.") is a very strong criticism of Christian patriarchy that includes fairly staunch criticism of Phillips. I'm uncomfortable with it being used to reference his biography, and I am not overly convinced that the material in book (which does admittedly include some biographical focus) is sufficient to prove notability. I'm struggling to find further independent sources with in-depth coverage. Errant ^(chat!) 20:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete One highly critical third party reference does not notability make. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ukexpat and ErrantX. Keep. Per StAnselm, below. Offline sources need to be verified, but we need to AGF that they're reliable until then, especially since the non-offline sources are on the razor's edge of indicating notability already. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are more references that I am working on finding and adding. Jehorn (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this guy ain't notable. Giant Snowman 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree that we need more, not fewer, articles on notable clergy, but this clergyman does not pass our notability requirements, especially given BLP concerns. --NellieBly (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Moriori (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Jehorn has done a sterling job of finding sources - these have been added since the deletion nomination. Being a leader in the Independent Christian Film movement is quite distinct to being a leader in the patriarchy movement, and that gets him over the line with notability. There are independent third-part sources providing significant coverage here. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is still not supported by any reliable sources about Doug Phillips. There's a bunch of stuff published by his organisation and a press release published by his PR firm; that's hopeless. Most of what's left is minor coverage of a single small film festival: that might be evidence that the film or the film festival is notable, or that Vision Forum is notable (but not by themselves, and Vision Forum itself is very badly sourced). Notability is not inherited. What's necessary is extensive, independent coverage by reliable sources about Phillips himself; of that there is none. The only thing that talks about him personally is Quiverfull, and one highly critical source isn't adequate for a BLP. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding more sources when I have time. Jehorn (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage already shown in the article to pass WP:GNG, and there is more shown at Google News[1] and Google Books[2]. He does appear to be a significant figure: a December 18, 2010 article in The Atlantic named him in a short list of "fundamentalist luminaries".[3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made since nomination showing a meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silat Bali

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

A non martial art without any reliable sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that fails to show why it's subject is notable. The only external source is a dead link to its own site. My search found no reliable sources that show this is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It clearly exists, but I couldn't find any independent sources to support notability. I found some articles on some competition results, but nothing that shows it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kertha Wisesa

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

A non martial artist without any reliable sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that fails to make any notability claims. My search found nothing that shows this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent support for any notability claims. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gysbers

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY as has yet to play 100 minor pro, or 1 nhl game. OPJHL awards and college career confer no notability. PROD removed with comment that is was not appropriate? Ravendrop 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article shouldn't be deleted because this guy is getting more and more popular as we speak. He is playing more and more games at the AHL level. So far, in the 2010–11 AHL season which isn't over yet, he played 42 games according to the internet hockey database as of March 1,2011. And this season ends on April 25, 2011. Y.golovko (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a fellow who's a handful of games away from meeting NHOCKEY. He's half a season away from doing so. There aren't enough games left in the season to do so this year, and it's plain that through injuries or scratches he doesn't play in every game as it is. A lot can happen to an undrafted farmhand between seasons ... such as deciding to move on and do something besides pro sports. Check back this time next year. Ravenswing 15:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY, and as User:Ravenswing points out, he won't be able to make the threshold this season. A lot can happen between now and next season. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanawar Chadhar

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

876 hits in Google, fails WP:GNG. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources about this BLP, fails WP:GNG Tooga - BØRK! 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfect number. There are valid arguments on both sides of this debate and although AfD is not a vote I lumped the delete/merge/redirect !votes together which clearly showed a consensus not to keep. I will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 20:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

33550336

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

Integers notable only for being a perfect number. ~~Articles misnamed; they should be 33550336 (number) and 8589869056 (number).~~ (There may be other reasons for deletion) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now moved, so my "misnamed" sentence is now incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I do find the information somewhat interesting. I'm not experienced enough with the WP:TRIVIA policy to really make a firm decision. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant notability guidelines are at WP:NUMBER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because neither number is Numberwang. Had to say it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to List of perfect numbers. There is nothing else about the two besides listing the common properties of perfect numbers. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tthat would be redirect. I could live with that, although the articles/redirects would still be misnamed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be at "X (number)" if there's nothing else with the exact name X? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the redirect for the Unix 128-bit catastrophe year. There's a convention that numbers which are potentially years should be noted with (number). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers for more details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optimists, aren't we? Year 33,550,336... Let me see,... per WikiGalaxyPedia::RPOV (Relativistic Potential Observer View) policy, page 3355066 must be a nondeterministic floating disambig page, which, for a warp 3 observer in Banach hyperspace, must list 33550336 (old Earth era), 335503366 (absolute Klingon time), ... in even-numbered parallel universes and only Na'vi::33550336 (Pandora time) in odd-numbered para-uns, as well as 33550336 (base-1010 number)." Lom Konkreta (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've moved these to 33550336 (number) and 8589869056 (number). Certainly, both get mentioned a lot if for no other reason that they are only the 5th and 6th perfect numbers out of the first 10 billion integers [4]. It's like 6, 28, 496, 8128, and then, "what the fuck?"-- not another one until 33,550,336 and then not another one after that until 8,589,869,056 (which is also a phone number in San Diego). I don't see the point of deleting either of the two articles. If someone sets out to create ten billion separate pages, each one devoted to an integer, that might be a problem, but there aren't that many notable numerals once you get past six digits. There aren't that many intelligent articles on Wikipedia, as compared to hundreds of thousands of stupid ones. I guess there's a point to nominating these, I just don't know what it would be. Mandsford 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with these articles is that they have no content beyond repetition of properties of perfect numbers. Just look at them: they are nearly exact copies of each other. Arthur Rubin points out above that there is even nothing to merge. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there was very little content in the articles, and that these have been, so far, copies of each other, and there does need to be more to this type of article than just stating a lone fact. And, if all there was to say was that "it's on a list of numbers", then a redirect would be the next choice. However, I've found and added more information to expand these beyond what the original author stated, including the history behind its discovery as a perfect number. It was the first perfect number identified after the ancient Greeks had identified the first four, and mathematical historians found that it was first recorded in a 15th century manuscript. [5]. I'll work on the other one tomorrow; there's a history behind that one as well, relating to the Italian mathematician Cataldi. Mandsford 02:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was thinking about nominating them myself. The only known properties of interest are the general properties of perfect numbers and 47 of those are known and listed at List of perfect numbers. None of them deserve their own article merely for belonging to a notable integer sequence. There are lots of other notable sequences at Category:Integer sequences and individual members don't generally get their own article unless they have other unrelated interesting properties, per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers. The discovery of even perfect numbers is a simple consequence of the discovery of the associated Mersenne prime. Details about the discovery would be better at Mersenne prime#History. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Only interesting properties of these numbers are the fact that they are perfect numbers (and various straightforward consequences of that fact), so they fail the notability benchmark for articles on individual integers, as set out at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Information on history of discovery of perfect numbers belongs in perfect number article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Since numbers have a life of their own I'd apply WP:BIO#People notable for only one event rule of notability. It only has a minor role in Perfect numbers. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 33550336 to perfect number as there's now some info on its history that's worth preserving, but it's more sensible to have that info included in the 'perfect number' article. Delete 8589869056 as there isn't any info there worth preserving and it's a highly unlikely search term. Qwfp (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 8589869055 is an unlikely search term, but if someone researches perfect numbers, then 8589869056 is a rather likely search term. (This is called "conditional probability" - btw, also an unlikely search term for 99.99% of world population :-) Lom Konkreta (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone who's researched perfect numbers to that degree will have no trouble finding the 'perfect numbers' article. Qwfp (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into perfect number as both have content worth salvaging but neither has any content unrelated to their being perfect numbers. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sad. Certainly, the additions will survive into a merger into perfect number, so no information is going to be lost, but I wish that we had more contributors who were interested in mathematics in the same way that sports fans are interested in athletes and game results. Wikipedia is taken more seriously now than it was five years ago, and the overall percentage of entertainment articles (sports, TV, movies, music) probably is less now than it was in 2006, but it's still got a long way to go. I compare essays like WP:PROF and WP:BOOK and WP:NUMBER to the wording of WP:ATHLETE and I see it as a reflection of our American culture-- intellectuals, unfortunately, are not assertive, while sports fans are. That's too bad. Mandsford 02:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that our readers would be better served by all this information being on one page rather than spread over several. Reyk _YO! 03:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with seeing 33550336 as an athlete is that it does not seem to have enough muscle to reach the finish line. Tkuvho (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually used WP:BIO for notability as they're all approximately the same. By the way I've not ever even been to America. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, America. People think big in America. Sooner or later they will discover that the new WTC is exactly 33550336‎ angstroms tall, in which case we can restore this page to its former glory. Tkuvho (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful, since 33550336‎ angstroms is about two fifteenths of an inch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 33550336 to perfect number Because it indeed belongs to that 'perfect number' article. I can see no point keeping it separate.

Andrew Powner 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC

Redirect to Perfect number. There is very little if any information worth merging, most of it being already there. If anyone wishes to merge more then I see no reason why they shouldn't, and in any case there is no harm at all in keeping these as redirects. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there's no great harm in that even if search would find it anyhow. I just get this picture of us having an article or redirect for every single number with even minor interest up till the very first uninteresting number :) Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and personally I really think almost all of the articles on individual numbers are pointless and we'd be better off without them. However, a redirect is another matter, and the first half dozen perfect numbers are a bit more interesting than most. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is worth a redirect. I wonder what the first uninteresting number on Wikipedia? It sounds like the sort of thing somebody with too much time on their hands has worked out. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both meet WP:GNG, a concern here regards WP:What Wikipedia is not for the current 8589869056 (number) article. The fifth perfect number was discovered in 1456, the sixth in separate discoveries one in 1555 and one in 1588, and the seventh discovered in 1588, i.e., our sources tell us that these numbers are notable. The detail split-off offers a different viewpoint than it has at the Perfect number article, so I don't agree with the redirect to Perfect number. The issue is in telling where the examples, as they become larger, become WP:What Wikipedia is not, and that doesn't occur with 33550336 (number). Given the Cataldi history, I'd say the sixth and seventh perfect numbers belong in a combined article, with redirects to that article being 8589869056 (number) and 137438691328 (number). I'm not aware of a purpose for keeping 8589869056 (number) as a redirect to Perfect number. Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For articles on individual integers we have a more specific notability guideline than WP:GNG; it is set out atWikipedia:Notability (numbers). These articles do not meet the benchmark of notability at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Reply That position does not stand against WP:N, here is what WP:N says:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous and next posts had an edit conflict.

The feeling so far is pretty clear, but let's leave Notability (numbers) out of this. It's simply an essay, not a guideline, and it's got the same self-loathing, smart-is-not-cool quality that a lot of essays of that genre have. It's practically an apology for even being interested in numerals. The sports fans have the right idea. Mandsford 13:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) there is a box which says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline". That box has been there since at least as far back as December 2005, as can be seen here. What is the basis for saying that it is "simply an essay, not a guideline"? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and it is one of the subject-specific guidelines mentioned in the sentence quoted by Unscintillating (the "box on the right" is Template:Notabilityguide, which has a link to Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)). That guideline is our standard benchmark for determining notability for articles on individual numbers and is frequently cited in AfD discussions for such articles - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65539 (number) for one example. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is also a "standard", these particular numbers, as shown by reliable sources, don't need a list of "properties" to support their status as notable. Unscintillating (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, they do actually. Obviously a relevant subject-specific guideline takes precedence over the general guideline. If you think the WP:NUMBER benchmark of "at least three unrelated mathematical properties" should be changed, by all means start a discussion on its talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but at the moment that is the notability benchmark for articles on individual integers and we can't arbitrarily ignore it in this AfD. Said my piece - I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk)

*I think I'm just stating common knowledge. Please review the discussion at WT:N called "Do_subject-specific_guidelines_override_the_GNG". This was a week-long discussion at WT:N just a month and a half ago. The ~~fundamental guideline~~ definition for notability, stated at WP:N, is "worthy of notice". Having only one (especially interesting) property does not prove that the topic is not "worthy of notice"; on the contrary, being the first (and the second and the third) non-trivial perfect number(s) to be discovered, and a history of over 500 years of notice being taken of this discovery (these discoveries), is reason to consider under WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have come across WP:NUMBER before, but never the less it is the long-standing notability benchmark that is always used to evaluate articles on individual integers. The purpose of the "three properties" benchmark is to avoid opening the floodgates to many thousands of trivial number articles that only say "x is a square number", "x is a prime number", "x is the 73rd Fibonacci number" etc. If you wish to argue that a more permissive benchmark should be applied to number articles then you need to take that argument elsewhere. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with that reasoning is the assumption that the perfect numbers are "trivial" because, notwithstanding that mathematicians spent millennia searching for them, they don't pass some 21st century math student's "three-properties" test. Like WP:ATHLETE, though, WP:NUMBER doesn't exclude anything; it's a means of bringing in subjects that might not otherwise meet WP:N. As others have pointed out, there's a history behind both of these, evident from many reliable and verifiable sources, that makes them notable without having to pass some 3-tasks initiation ceremony to get into the mathematical frat house. Mandsford 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying perfect numbers are trivial. It is simply that there is no real point to having these separate pages. The articles on the numbers are not monuments to them. These are single event numbers that won't be looked up on their own except as perfect numbers. If there was something else they would be looked up for as well that would be a different matter. They are minor in that there are a number of perfect numbers and these are not ones that come trippingly to mind when one thinks of a perfect number. Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right on point, you are implying that whether or not the WP:GNG is satisfied, that we should consider 33550336 (number) under the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice", and you say it is not "worthy of notice". And my view is that this is a variation of WP:TLDNR for an unfamiliar number, that yes it is a bit of culture shock that such a long number is notable, and that this is part of what makes this number article interesting and "worthy of notice". Also, as I have said, it provides a separate viewpoint from the perfect number article. Unscintillating (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the mathematics and history references. Fotaun (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gandalf61's argument. Tkuvho (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He states, the "only interesting properties of these numbers are the fact that they are perfect numbers", however the history of their discovery is another interesting subject for the article. Fotaun (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the history of their discovery is not a property of the numbers themselves. If you read my comment in full, you will find that I also said "Information on history of discovery of perfect numbers belongs in perfect number article". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history is a property of the article, and the 2nd quote is more of an argument for merging, than deletion. Fotaun (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The history of the Mersenne primes may be interesting; the history of the perfect numbers is not as interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice the article 8128 (number). I think that is a pretty similar type of article, but it isn't being considered for deletion. Why these two articles, but not the other perfect number articles: 6 (number), 28 (number), 496 (number), and 8128 (number). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurvetson2 (talk • contribs)

In addition to being perfect numbers, the articles on 6 (number), 28 (number) and 496 (number) cite many other unrelated properties, so they easily pass the WP:NUMBER benchmark; 8128 (number) is a more marginal case. However, the existence of other similar articles is never a strong argument in an AfD discussion, which should consider each article on its own merits - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid#What about article x?. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gandalf61's argument. I disagree that merging to Perfect number is an appropriate course of action, because the number 33550336 has properties other than being a perfect number (e.g. it is an integer, it is an even number, etc.) which could equally validly be the target of the redirect. Icalanise (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but the perfect number article talks about evenness and integerness so those properties are relevant there. Reyk _YO! 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. For 33550336 there's at least some argument for keeping (which I reject), but 8589869056 clearly fails. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to perfect number. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daviker

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

Promotional article that cites 1) company press releases; 2) unrelated articles (i.e. articles that do no mention this company); and 3) company white papers as its only sources, and thus fails to establish the notability of this company. Google search provides no significant hits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. The article is totally promotional, and there is not one single proper independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, Spam. Also fails to conform with WP:COMPANY —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Non-notable maker of telemarketing software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as noted. I removed the hangon tag because the newbie creator removed the speedy deletion tag. That having been said, it looks spammish to me. This is the sole news item that I could find, and this is the only review I could find, but they do not look reliable to me. This looks at first glance to be real news story, but is actually just a press release. Sorry, it is not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent sources to establish its significance, and as such fails WP:ORG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a bit like a spammy, promotional arcitle. No reliable soucres to prove notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not notable, no worthiwile sources. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. O. Onyekaba

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

I think that similar to us not having articles on every local Mayor, (see WP:POLITICIAN) a village chief - not a state or major city chief - needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources, something I can't find here. Of course there is the systematic bias in that the Nigerian web coverage is limited compared to the US or Australia, but the WP:GNG applies to all. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if significant coverage can be found. The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:GNG, I am also unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 07:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:RS. By the way, Nigerian traditional rulers are not politicians, they are not elected into any public office, neither do they have any polictical power, and as such WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to them. Amsaim (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply as a non-notable politician. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia C. Bulat

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

Non-notable amateur historian. Co-author of two volumes of local history, of no discernible academic impact beyond her local community. No independent coverage except for an obituary. Obviously fails WP:PROF notability criteria, and has no other claims to notability except for her writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". Her work has been cited a by multiple articles revolving around Chicago history.[6][7][8][9] Her work is considered an antique.[10]. Now, take into account these books were published in the 60s. This is over 30 years since the invention of the internet. I can't find anywhere in the notability guidelines where "impact beyond her local community" is even relevant. Also, if you check the references, #3 is a book talking about the work she did - and she is not a contributing author to it. I believe applying WP:PROF to her is an inappropriate choice - as she is not a professor (aka, the professor test fails for her), and as such, the criteria is not valid. Stick to author - that is what she is known for. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: no, footnote #3 isn't a book about her. It's just another book by another historian about a related topic of village history. And the mere fact that some other authors have cited her works doesn't signify notability either: every book except for the most obscure ones gets cited sometimes, by someone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: So, you have read Village on the River, 1888-1988: A History of Lyons, Illinois in Celebration of the Centennial of Its Incorporation I would like to point out Bulat's work is being cited 30 years after it was written. Not every author can claim that. Also, despite your claims, her work being cited DOES make her notabile per WP:AUTHOR. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citations 30 years after publication is nothing special and nothing particularly impressive in the field of history. This could still be said about virtually every history researcher. WP:AUTHOR speaks about impact of an entirely different dimension (such as cases where whole books get written about the author in question.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Virginia C. Bulat for deletion This article should not be deleted for several reasons -
1) there is very little information available for those interested in studying the local history of Illinois, both the books by Virginia C. Bulat are early examples of a WOMAN HISTORIAN documenting the rapid historical changes in the region that was developed into the suburbs of Illinois;
2) she was a WOMAN HISTORIAN who was of Polish-American heritage - there should be recognition and acknowledgment as "notable" of the published work of a POLISH-AMERICAN WOMAN who was involved AT THE LOCAL LEVEL in PRESERVING CHICAGO SUBURBAN or NORTHERN ILLINOIS HISTORY;

3) this artile will be linked to the stub - Hoffman Tower - this is a state recognized landmark much discussed in the two books written by Virginia C. Bulat -- the wikipedia stub is extremely deficient in documenting the history of the landmark. Both Virginia C. Bulat's books were used in the process of achieving landmark status.

4) addressing one of the reasons for proposed deletion - there is no current coverage on these books - this is because the author Virginia C. Bulat has been dead since 1986. Due to her early historical documentation, and through the efforts of her co-author Rose Benedetti - Hoffman Tower was made into a recognized landmark in the 1970s and 1980s.

5) Local Lyons and Riverside news articles citations can be retrieved from the local libraries to document the preservation efforts -- this will take time to retrieve.

6) a related article will be added to Wikipedia on co-author Rose Marie Benedetti, an ITALIAN-AMERICAN WOMAN HISTORIAN of LOCAL ILLINOIS HISTORY. Both articles (Bulat and Benedetti) are important in documenting that WOMEN HISTORIANS whose IMMIGRANT ANCESTORS came to CHICAGO have worked to document the history of SUBURBAN CHICAGO, not just recently, but starting in the 1950s, as Chicago was just starting its expansion into COOK COUNTY.

7) Personal information on the Virginia C. Bulat has been removed to emphasize her professional contributions.

8) As background to my comments made above, I am a professional historian and professor of history (Ph.D., UCLA, 1999).
User:CACD29 originator of this article, 1 March 2011, 10:00 a.m. —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I verified that the work of this independent scholar has had some impact, but I am not sure if she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a courtesy, I gave the creator some suggestions on her talk page, and added some material and a rescue tag to the article. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google for her name and .gov websites and only one thing shows up. www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/chpo/chicago_portage.pdf Her work is used as a reference. Search for her name and .edu and you find two results. [11] Google Scholar has results appearing, but I didn't look through those. This person is a notable enough historian to have their work quoted in places, and still studied today. Nothing gained by deleting this article. Dream Focus 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has been argued above that (1) her work has had impact (citations) by Turlo Lomon and (2) that there is no coverage of her books because she was deceased in 1986 by User:CACD29. Both of these claims are demonstrably false. The citations in point (1) are nothing more than pamphlets and web-pages. We typically require mentions in non-ephemeral sources, e.g. national news publications, texts, journal articles, and the like. Moreover, there is a well-established consensus that there must be hundreds of such citations, if arguing notability on the basis of the impact of one's work. As to point (2), WorldCat shows that the reason her books are not well known is simply that they were never distributed at more than a local level. The "Lyons" book is held by just one institution, while the "Portage" book is held by only 14, all local. Situation unlikely to change, given that both were published almost 50 years ago. These observations clearly support nom's assessment: non-existent impact in the context of WP notability requirements. Friendly advice on some of the additional points above: please refrain from arguments on the basis of sex. Also suggest deferring the creation of Benedetti article until verdict is rendered on this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A dozen libraries on their index have the book. Obviously books about a state's history aren't likely to be found outside that state. All of these libraries thought Village on the River, 1888-1988: A History of Lyons, Illinois in Celebration of the Centennial of Its Incorporation was a notable enough book to include in them. Dream Focus 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your doubts about WorldCat ("I don't see as how worldcat is a reliable source. Where does it list what institutions hold a book? Seems to have just a small number of libraries" – this seems to have been struck-out), this database is the world's largest bibliographic database and it itemizes the collections of 71,000 libraries in 112 countries (both statements from our WP page). WorldCat shows the institutional holdings of a book, which, by long-standing consensus, we take as a reliable indicator of impact or significance. To your current point, I would largely agree: local history books are generally not held very widely ... which means that they (and their authors) are generally not encyclopedic fodder. There are lots of exceptions, of course, for example this book about a small 2-street neighborhood in Saint Louis, MO. I'm afraid that any way you look at this, Bulat's notability is nil. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I am having trouble understanding the international relevance of this subject for our international encyclopedic resource. I don't feel the subject passes WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't have to be "international". Or relevant to any group. Most aren't. Dream Focus 03:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sympathetic to the creator-scholar, I would agree to delete, based on the evidence found by User:Agricola44. It now seems clear that this author is just not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. We should all be striving for better representation of women in WP. I just don't think we can do that legitimately by violating our own policies. This is an unfortunate case, but likewise an uncontroversial one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that is why I worked so hard to rescue Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon, amongst other articles of interest to women. We need "better representation of women in WP" but not "by violating our own policies". Bearian (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the national park service believes her to be a notable and reliable source for information, shouldn't we? [12] They reference her book in their historical publications. Dream Focus 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reliable" and "notable" aren't the same thing. The citations merely show people treat her as a reliable source of information. But the National Park Service has no opinion about whether she is notable for having a Wikipedia entry. Every bona fide researcher can be a reliable source about something. That doesn't mean every researcher should have a Wikipedia article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability guidelines for this are at WP:Author. The first one says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Others keep citing her research. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously, there's room for interpretation of how "widely" counts as "widely". But I would suggest that "people who are interested in the history of village XYZ" is hardly a circle large enough to justify a description of "widely" in any meaningful sense. For the WP:AUTHOR guideline to make any sense at all, "widely cited" certainly needs to be interpreted in a way different from "cited by whoever happens to be interested in the same extremely narrow topic that this author specialized on". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think the operative words in what you said above are widely cited. I hardly think that a single, unpublished white-paper by one Edward T. Bilek of 1839 Wisconsin Avenue, Berwyn Illinois satisfies this requirement. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the subject doesn't pass any of the WP:PROF criteria i.e no substantial impact, no prestigious recognitions and no important academic posts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sad that the ARS cannot find enough to document this person better, but I would like to have her biography kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think if properly done so as to preserve credit and copyright, the article can be transferred over to another wiki or something in Wikia. But regardless, wanting something kept is not an acceptable argument in an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:AUTHOR and the arguments outlined above Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I deeply dislike when a new author who is making contributions we want has one of his early creations thrown into the prod/afd process without warning. I'm glad to see well-researched articles like William Harvey Gibson and Carl Owen Dunbar, and I thank the author for that effort. However, I hate to say that Virginia C. Bulat is, at best, very borderline, and at least the editor can know moving forwards where to concentrate their efforts. The author should also be aware that although Ms. Bulat does not seem to merit her own article under current guidelines and policies, that doesn't mean she can't be mentioned in some other appropriate article(s), such as Hofmann Tower. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point that I think we could all agree on. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails our criteria for author or WP:PROF The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no reasonable way of taking the article as asserting significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Welles

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carryl Varley

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

Delete as non-notable, again (3rd nomination). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Subject has almost nothing at IMDb profile. Almost the entire Varley article as it now consists serves to negate claims that she appeared as "Jinny" --whoever that is-- when multiple sources are cited to the contrary, leaving a very meagre curriculum vitae. Article does not convince, thus, that subject is notable; just the opposite. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, even if everything she claims is true. How did this survive two earlier nominations? BTW Jinny is an Italian band. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Bossi

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

Self-aggrandizing autobiography of an actor who has had only a string of minor roles on various television episodes. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is very hard to read, seemingly because of being translated badly from French, however that should not be a reason to delete. I'm saying delete because his main claim to fame seems to be a part in the TV show FlashForward, yet he is not listed as a star on its article. Wolfview (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a facebook page, badly translated, than an encyclopedia article. No real notability, and no credit on the FlashForward cast. Bagheera (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. The poor translation and COI of author aside, the individual's lacking career and coverage fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. As it currently stands, the article speaks toward what the individual might do in the future, and not about anything of note already accomplished. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogatell

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

An un-notable brand of wine. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and specifically WP:WINETOPIC. At the current state the article includes a large background section about the region and only three sentences about the brand itself, from unclear sources, and not establishing notability. Muhandes (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the vintner isn't known in the Americas, it and its cooperative are known in Spain. Original article was messy with flowery NPOV, but has been considerably cleaned up.
~~Keep~~. ~~Vintner appears to qualify with first item under Wikipedia:WINETOPIC#Valid_criteria alone for 'one of the first to use … “indigenous yeast” fermentation'.~~ --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article doesn't even say that - it says "one of the first to use natural yeast in the global market place" (my emphasis). The method can be used for centuries locally, and they are one of the first to market it in the global market. Second, this claim is totally unsourced. Third, even if the claim was sourced, it doesn't mean they pioneered a new method, just that they are one of the first (maybe they are the 10th?). Fourth, even if they pioneered it, there is nothing to show this is "significant contribution to the world of wine" rather than an advertising hook. Keep in mind the entire article suffers from massive WP:COI being written by an employee. Show with reliable sources that this technique is a significant contribution. Show similarly that the brand pioneered the method, not just jumped on a wagon, and not just were the first to market it, and I will withdraw the nomination. The article is light years from that. --Muhandes (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is also quite simply not correct. Bulk brands tends to use only cultivated yeast, so there are few low-cost volume products using indigenous yeast only. If you have only this perspective it could seem rather new. But there is a large number of biodynamic or traditionalist producers in e.g. France and Germany that don't use any cultivated yeast. These are often high-end wines. But I would contend that e.g. Nicolas Joly's wines are very much a part of the global market place. Tomas e (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-leaning to delete VERY rarely are individual wines notable enough to merit their own articles (Dom Perignon being one of the few). Typically details on a wine are included in the article on the winery, itself, which has a better chance of establishing notability and having a worthwhile article created on it. That said, if this article is kept, it should be moved to Cellar Batea with the article refashioned to be an encyclopedic entry on the co-operative rather than a WP:WINEGUIDE entry on an individual, largely non-notable wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cellar Batea, per Agne. I find that argument persuasive and it resolves a complaint that Wikipedia:WINETOPIC#Valid_criteria guidelines are so Americanised as to disfavour non-US vintners. Thanks for the suggestion and if it helps build consensus, I withdraw my earlier vote above. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I already voiced my opinion above, I would like to re-emphasize that the issues of notability are just as strong in case of this being moved to Cellar Batea. Namely, Cellar Batea does not pass WP:GNG as well. One would first need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of these are currently shown in the article. --Muhandes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move. Definitely non-notable as an article on a single wine (which very, very rarely qualify), could possibly be salvaged as a winery article. Tomas e (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colden Common F.C.

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

This article's PROD was removed as it had apparently been previously nominated for deletion. The club does not fulfill notability criteria as it has not played in the F.A. Cup (or even the F.A. Vase) and currently sits at the 11 tier of the football league system. I am also nominating the following related pages because they also have not played at a sufficiently high level:

Keep all I previously nominated these articles for deletion, but at the AfD it was noted that all clubs have played at the equivalent of the modern level 10 of the pyramid, and were kept as a result of that AfD. Number 5 7 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all have played at a high enough level in the past, and notability does not diminish over time. Giant Snowman 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I very much hope that the unwritten rule that playing above level 10 still applies, or this doesn't have much chance. Best sources around were this and this, plus an H2g2 page (apparently not considered a reliable source). Not a hope of meeting WP:CORP unless there are a lot of offline sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The clubs may currently play at level 11 of the English football league system, but all three played in the top division of the Hampshire League during the 1990s, [13], [14], [15], a level of football which equates to the modern level 10, the level at which by long-standing consensus club notability is assumed. Colden Common F.C. won titles at that level, and Bishops Waltham F.C. played in the Wessex League Division Two from 2004 to 2006, at which time it was a level 10 division. I've tidied the Colden Common article up a bit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All three clubs have played at a high enough level to be deemed notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G7 deletion requested by author JohnCD (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gintaras Kazlauskas

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

I find one tangential reference to his work in a book on GBooks (just two stories about a lorry driver with the same name) but no matches in GNews. There is no doubt he is a painter and a restorer but the significant impact needed for WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST is unlikely to be addressed in the near future based on the sources available or taking the claims made in the Lithuanian Wikipedia version in good faith. PROD removed without explanation so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've db-authored it, no need to pursue an AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G7 deletion requested by author JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gintaras Kraujelis

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

The article is about a painter of stained-glass windows who has had some exhibitions. There are no matches in GNews or GBooks and is seems unlikely that sources will be available to address WP:ARTIST in the near future. The Lithuanian Wikipedia article gives some context but also fails to address the criteria. PROD removed without explanation, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've db-authored it, no need to pursue an AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anthropy

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

I am nominating this on behalf of User:Filibusti, who has requested me to assist him in nominating it. I do not endorse the nomination or vote Delete.

Filibusti's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that the article topic is not notable per our notability policies, and additionally that the article does not meet WP:BIO. I have invited him to further explain his argument through a formal delete vote. DustFormsWords (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clearcut failure of meeting WP:BIO. There is coverage of her but it does not hold up to RS scrutiny (as is a requirement for inclusion, as outlined in WP:GNG). None of the sources given are reliable sources, but seem more like personal blogs. I was at first uncertain whether Indiegames.com might be an RS or not, but the interviewer uses a handle ("timw") and his real/full name isn't listed anywhere on the site. Filibusti (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indiegames.com is run by the same organization that runs the Independent Games Festival (the most important event in the field) and Gamasutra (one of the biggest sites in the world of professional game design). How can this not be a reliable source? By this logic almost all notable indie games would have to be deleted from Wikipedia because the most important sites aren't counted. --IndieGamesGermany (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some info about the ipad game she helped develop that was launched in 2010, and some more references, including one from MacWorld that indicates she did develop that game, which is called Pong Vaders. I've tried to address the notability/orphan/refimprove tags, added an info box and generally tried to improve the article. She seems to be a notable freeware game developer. Nihola (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be under-developed, but it has several references, some of them certainly fulfilling WP:RS. Mighty Jill Off has several interviews with her from reliable sources that are not covered on this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references that go into non-trivial detail of her person would you say is an RS? I can't see any. Also, I looked through the refs on Mighty Jill Off but I didn't see any interview not already included on her page (and as I've said, they're not RS). Filibusti (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything checks out, so I don't know any good reason to delete this one. It seems to have been improved somewhat since nomination. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Mac World is a good a source as any. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that her games are notable does not mean that she is automatically notable. The references that do qualify as WP:RS (MacWorld) may or may not go into detail of her games, but none goes into non-trivial detail of her. (The non-RS ones do, but yeah, they are not RS so it's irrelevant) Filibusti (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anthropy was featured as a host of the Indie Gamemaker Rant, a part of GDC's Games Summit; Game Set Watch interviewed her; Gamasutra interviewed her; 1UP.com's indie blog covers her presentation at the Indie Gamemaker Rant; Heavenly Symphony featured one of her games. Yet again, with minimal effort, I've found more than enough non-trivial demonstrations of her notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the Rock, Paper, Shotgun (reliable source) links that I added, they clearly show Anthropy to be a well-known individual. --IndieGamesGermany (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

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

I am nominating this on behalf of User:Filibusti, following a series of discussions across my talk page and his. Please note I am assisting in a technical capacity by nominating and do not necessarily endorse the nomination or vote Delete.

Filibusti's reason is that the topic is not notable per our notability guidelines, due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. He specifically notes that blogs are typically not considered reliable sources, and many of the sources in the article such as Jay Is Games are blogs. DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the argument is that it fails notability guidelines because there are no RS that gives it "significant coverage" by going into non-trivial detail of the game. The JayIsGames review does, but I don't think it constitutes an RS, per WP:IRS, and the notability guidelines clearly state that any source used to determine notability must be an RS. JIG started out as a personal blog on flash and downloadable casual games that has grown to become a high-traffic blog. The people associated with it (at least Jay Bibbs) has no formal education in publishing or journalism. I would think (but this is conjecture so not really an argument) that nor do any of the reviewers. Filibusti (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note If this is deleted someone should nominate most of Category:Tower defense video games. From reading Tower defense it's clear that this was the first major game in this genre, although Desktop Tower Defense came later it seems to have more coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNET, The Escapist, Maximum PC, Eurogamer, and Gamasutra, found in the span of five minutes. Keep. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - squeaks by with enough coverage. Also, just in general AfD nominators seem to be forgetting WP:BEFORE lately. --Teancum (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only looked at a few of the sources, but they look acceptable. At the very least this would be a merge... Hobit (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Gent

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

Ran for Texas state legislature twice. He lost once in 2006 and didn't get the party's nomination in 2008. He was a municipal court judge and city attorney. Here is his biography from his law firm. No other "losing", non notable Texas legislature candidate has a redirect either. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a losing candidate for state legislature, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & Cullen328. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and has no apparent notbility otherwise.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN, no coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Southern California

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

No sources stating this area exists or is notable. All the article basically consists of is the introductions of two other articles, which have apparently been copied and pasted into this one. TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm confused what is being argued- that there are no sources to be found? Here are a batch of books, a few news sources, and it's being used as a common term, though perhaps not by discussing it in much depth. If the issue is that it simply echoes two other articles, it appears to do so in proper summary style. tedder (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you look at tedder's searches, nearly all of the Google Books and Google Scholar results (that don't start a sentence or book title) actually refer to "inland Southern California", with a lowercase "i", suggesting that the authors were merely adding an adjective to "Southern California", and that "Inland Southern California" is not really an actual, defined place. There are fewer than 30 results for "Inland Southern California" in the Google News search - many of which come from a single newspaper. And even in those results, I saw no evidence that the Imperial Valley was included as part of "Inland Southern California" - they seem to limit the definition to Riverside and San Bernardino counties. If anything, "Inland Southern California" should redirect to Inland Empire. Dohn joe (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I recall correctly, "Inland Southern California" is a neologism created by the one newspaper you're referring to (the The Press-Enterprise) so they'd have a clearly-defined area to refer to in their articles, rather than the fuzzily-defined "Inland Empire". --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its an obvious region. Maybe the "I" shouldn't be capitalized as it isn't proper, rather a geographical region, but its the first word in the title so it is. Regardless, it exists, it is inland Southern California as opposed to coastal Southern California. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Inland SoCal also appears to be a coinage of the Press-Enterprise papers, see http://www.inlandsocal.com/. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible move, though I opposed deletion, I believe an attempt should be made to preserve the article. Desert Southern California already redirects there, however in the event that it is deleted, it may be more appropriate to move the article to that title as it is does exist and is notable. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A tourism bureau does not a reliable source make. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name is listed on the California government website regardless of where it directs, which shows it is recognized by the state government. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I missed it, but I don't see either "Inland Southern California" or "Desert Southern California" on that website.... Dohn joe (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is on this page is "Desert region", which I think we'd call Desert region (California). Unscintillating (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just state this as a comment, which is that I think that Desert Southern California, which is a redirect to Inland Southern California, should be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A news search brings 74K hits, however all of them are of articles in the newspaper listed above, however the term itself brings several other hits of usage of the term to describe the region in the article in question. Yet, I am unsure if those usages constitute the subject of the article, the region in question, is nortable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the references in the article and ran through four pages of Google hits for [site:ca.gov "inland southern california"]. I got many hits with the capital "I", but no definitions of the geographical area. I found a geographic definition for "Southern California Inland" here. IMO part of notability is identifiability (how can you notice it if you don't know what it is). In this case, "Inland" might mean farther than 5 to 15 miles from the ocean, which is where the ocean stabilizes the climate. Right now there are zero references that define the area, so this is an easy decision, plus it would be not good to leave this topic around without a clear understanding of what is being discussed. Unscintillating (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The definition that you showed for Southern California Inland is what this article is about. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. CalRecycle's "Southern California Inland" is a set of three California counties. Central Valley (California) has a useful map. The map shows the mountains that are being used to define Inland Southern California in the lede. But the next section in Inland Southern California about Inland Empire tries to include the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino, which are in the same watershed as Los Angeles. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell, the only definition for "Inland Southern California" comes from the Press-Enterprise. The only definition for "Southern California Inland" comes from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). I've found essentially no results for "Desert Southern California" as a title. To me, while the concept of "inland Southern California" might make sense, we just can't create names for places. The best option would be to delete this article, and redirect "Inland Southern California" to Inland Empire (California). Dohn joe (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the phrase "Inland Southern California" being used on the page title of the internet page www.pe.com. But I don't see a reliable definition there. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Inland Empire (California) is unstable, the current lede calls the area an urban area that is in effect the eastern part of the greater Los Angeles metro area, but the map shows two large counties that are mostly desert, and that include the urban area as a small section on their western edge. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Request Please delete Inland Empire Metroplotan Area (redirect page) as a noncontroversial deletion. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real concept. I agree with others here that most references found are simply applying the adjective "inland" to the recognized concept "Southern California", and that the region or concept "Inland Southern California" has no recognized definition. IMO if you asked a dozen Californians if they have any particular concept of what "Inland Southern California" means, they would give you a dozen different answers. This appears to be another in a series of articles by User:08OceanBeach SD about supposed regions of California, which were pretty much cobbled together by combining a couple of counties into a larger group that may or may not have any recognition as an entity. All of these pseudo-regions appear to have been inspired by a single State of California document, an economic report which divided up the state into a dozen areas for convenience. An earlier example was Southern Border (California) which was eventually renamed to San Diego–Imperial (California) - I still don't see any point to its existence although it survived AfD. Another currently existing example is South Coast (California) which was redirected from the original "Southern Coast" and which is equally ill-defined. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was also using the article with the adjective inland in mind. I simply created it due to all the mentions of it throughout Southern California related pages, it seemed notable, however with all these references and logical arguments I am beginning to have a change of thought. The South Coast page has multiple references however. And I'm not sure what you mean by San Diego-Imperial, except for the fact that it is indeed an unrecognized region, I was just browsing through its history and was wondering why such a seemingly important fact was omitted from the document. I would just like to reiterate and say again how I thought it was notable but in the end seemed not to be so, forgive my mistake. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not used as a term, just as a description. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome

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

Fails our criteria for notability. This is part of a long-standing dispute over the work of Christian O'Brien who is notable because of his work as Chairman and General Manager of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP} but was also a minor fringe writer whose fringe writings now dominate his biography and have been and in this case are being promoted through Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This early section of O'Brien's work has had peer review and was featured in The Sunday Telegraph Magazine in March 1978 and also the Fortean Times 2006. I'd consider it meets criteria for notability with these sources. The remains of the Loxodrome are also part of the landscape, so should not be deleted so easily. They are there and I've tried to give this article and unbiased approach with the academic comments available, not really promoting anymore. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Fortean Times does not 'feature' it, indeed it doesn't even mention anything by this name but simply says "In the late 1970s, it was claimed by researcher Tim O'Brien, following up a theory put forward by Alfred Watkins, that, prior to the construction of the fort, the site was used as a lunar and solar observatory, an idea that has gained little credence since." I haven't been able to find a Sunday Telegraph article unless you are saying that the link [16] is actually a a (almost certainly copyvio and thus I doubt that we should have a link to it) copy of the article, but there's nothing on that page saying so. I can see that the page that links to it does, but there is no specific date and no author. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
Comment No problem! If the veracity of the Sunday Telegraph Article is the problem, I will chase this up and provide a date and author as soon as possible. Thanks! Paul Bedson (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have found the primary source's author [17] and updated. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am going to give Barbara Joy O'Brien a call tomorrow to see if she's kept an original copy for the date. Paul Bedson (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourcing can be improved. If not I will reverse my recommendation. It may be fringey but might be notable fringey. Having said that, the sources supplied so far look pretty dotty, so much improvement is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Christian O'Brien. This can be notable as a fringe theory if there is substantial coverage in reliable sources (even if the theory is completely debunked), but the Fourtean Times cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, which leaves only one article in the magazine section of a paper, which isn't substantial. If more coverage is found, I might change to keep, but if so, the lead paragraph needs to make it clear this is a disputed theory. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have changed the lead sentence to clarify it as a 'suggested theory'. Paul Bedson (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fortean Times is a reliable source for fringe material though not, of course, for mainstream science material. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have spoken to O'Brien's widow, who has a copy of the primary source and updated with the Sunday Telegraph issue number, date and author now. Hope this will help secure the keep vote! Paul Bedson (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is this [18] anything more than evidence that the paper was sent to the journal and the journal noted its existence? Also, the Fortean Times mention, reliable or not, is too short to be proof of notability. What we have is the Sunday Telegraph and Colin Wilson (another fringe writer). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And I was hoping you would remove the copyvio link to your website. That can't stay. I note that the article does not say that astronomers expressed awe despite your claim that it does. It quotes one astronomer saying "“The conclusions are so astounding that one immediately has to step back, look again, and ask, ‘Can this really be so?’ Had he written this paper 20 years ago, people would have laughed at it, but recent studies have revealed a picture of an elite in Britain who seem to have run the country." My problem is that as this is a newspaper article, that is a selected quote and we don't know what else Roy said. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, I've rephrased that accordingly. Regarding the copyvio, I have asked the webmaster of that website to include the full title, source, author and date on the page to improve it as a source (it is not my website! Wikipedia is my website ;-) ), whether that's acceptable, I'll take your guidance on what's best, can post it on a non-commercial site if needed or move it to an external link? Also added another source for the Wandlebury Enigma. Haven't added other fringey sources like Hugh Newman's World News Video[19] or his forthcoming book, The Wandlebury Enigma[20] due for release at Megalithomania later this March, 2011. There's some nice local info in these, but the emphasis on Earth Energies - NOT the type of fringey this article needs, but can add if they carry further weight to show notability. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment Changing it to 'astronomers' being astounded doesn't help either, as the article doesn't make that claim. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have rephrased again accordingly. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Question You've cited Paul Newman and Darvill's book (by the way, you need to put page numbers in for book citations). Exactly what do they say in chapter 8 about O'Brien's loxodrome? Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I've just ordered a copy and will let you know. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In other words, you've used a book as a citation without having read it. That's pretty bad. And you could just have asked me as I have the book. The answer is nothing. Newman, who now writes as Hugh Newman and is an O'Brien fan, hadn't read O'Brien at that point and the chapter doesn't discuss anything like a straight line, just Lethbridge and hill-figures. A different 'enigma'. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That whole question was entrapment then! That's pretty bad too. ;-) I'll remove the source if it's definitely not featured in the 2009 edition. Fascinating stuff about Paul/Hugh, I'm looking forward to getting the book. Hill figures are more my sort of thing that Teleuric Energies. Will be interesting to see his new book and if O'Brien features, but will probably be self-published, we'll see. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Christian O'Brien per lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Latter article also needs expansion on other aspects. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh? Did you miss the in-depth coverage in a major, reliable U.K. newspaper there?
Delete no substantial coverage need more sources to prove notability even as a fringe one The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ...into the landscape. I've created the Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills, which like the fairy mounds of Ireland that folklore guesses O'Brien's Tuatha De Danann faded off into, I hope those sites will retain some whisper of what went on here... Paul Bedson (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do you mean 'merge' or was that rhetorical? Or do you mean that if this article survives AfD, the others, which seem to be created to push O'Brien's idea, should be merged with them? Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer I mean I've changed my vote. After consideration and developments from this discussion, I'd now recommend an entirely new page called the Wandlebury Enigma dealing with both O'Brien's and Newman/Darvill's theories this would give it more substantial sourcing. Edmund Marriage has contacted David Hoppitt, who is still writing. All this has initiated discussions about another article and if Hugh Newman's forthcoming book is called the Wandlebury Enigma I'd say sourcing is substantial enough to support such a re-name. The Leper Stone and Portingbury Hills pages could then be tidied to avoid repetition. Let me know what you think? You'd have to write the Newman/Darvill part because my book hasn't arrived yet. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sourcing to show notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wandlebury Enigma Suggestion

I'm happy to rename and revise this to accomodate a substantial extra source in the Newman/Darvil book and better naming convention. The more hill figures, the merrier the enigma. I want to get this correct though and I can see all sorts of problems, from the fact that I am not quite sure whether the loxodrome line actually hits Portingbury Hills but through what O'Brien called Portingbury Warren Circle, which I think the sources may be referring to as another circle coming out of the lake nearby in Hatfield Forest. I'm not really sure about this and am going to have to go there sometime in the Summer to figure out which enlosure links to which zig-zag bank. The problem seems to have been caused by the Wikipedia page about Little Hallingbury (NOT created by me!) being a direct copyvio transcription from David Hoppit's "Wandlebury Enigma" Sunday Telegraph Article!!! Some resident from Little Hallingbury perhaps has considered my source substantial enough it would seem to directly quote the existence of their village by it. I'll agree to tidy that page up to sweeten the deal. Paul Bedson (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wandlebury Enigma. My book has turned up and I have re-written this with substantial sourcing, now covering Thomas Lethbridge's investigations into the hill figures around the Astronomical Complex. Hope this marks the end of the Wandlebury-Hatfield Loxodrome - it was as bad, unsourced name that Doug was 100% correct to question here. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Reiman

(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 and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources available to support an independent article. Trivial mentions and speculation are all I can see. Should be recreated if additional sources are brought to light. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:26, 26 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small town mayor who fails notability guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN as he has received no significant coverage in third party sources. Valenciano (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keepMandsford 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War I

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

Jozef Kowalski doesn't even belong on this list. There is no citation for an enlistment date and nothing that explicitly states he was a veteran of that war. He is no more a veteran of WWI than my cousin is a veteran of Korea (the state of war in Korea has never ended). There is also a technicality that allows service members in the U.S. to declare themselves a veteran of the Gulf War for compensation. To say he was a veteran of WWI even with a citation for the enlistment date would be synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not a one-entry list, removing Jozef still leaves a list around with entries. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Kowalski aside, this list have been developing for a years, and sadly, is probably near its end. There's no harm in letting the article end naturally. Czolgolz (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This list can be automatically deleted once each of the three people listed have died. JIP | Talk 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without Kowalski 2 is still a list. When there is one left then renaming or redirecting the article canb be considered. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'll come to a natural end before too long, and we can then decide what, if anything, we want to do regarding a WWI veterans article - although a list of surviving ones will become obsolete, we may decide there is still sufficient notability to warrant an article of some sort. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments put forth By Boing! above. Pedro : Chat 11:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been discussed that it will be deleted when the last person on this list dies, even if Mr. Kowalski is the last survivor. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Including or not including Kowalski has no bearing on Choules and Green, who are the primary focus of the list. Eventually, this list should be turned into a redirect/disambig, to preserve the history of the page. Redirecting to this article would probably make the most sense when the time comes.-LtNOWIS (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Why is this article still listed on AfD? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Even with only one surviving veteran, there would still be the possibility (theoretical at worst, unlikely at best) that another veteran may emerge, even as late as 2016 or so. If Kowalski outlives Green and Choules then the article could start along the lines of "It is believed that no veterans of the First World War are now living..." with perhaps a link to a new commemorative article detailing perhaps the last 25 of so veterans. After Kowalski's demise, the new commemorative article could then replace the existing one and the discussion forum on the new article could explore any new claims that could in theory emerge. We could even then be faced with the prospect of resurrecting the original article! If Green or Choules are the last surivivor,after his/her death any search for "surviving veterans of World War I" should automatically redirect to the new article. For me at least, a list can have one name. Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the criteria for deletion are in the original request and Wikipedia should strive to be a website of record, so this is a relevant list Mabuse (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country of which two entries of this list are already listed, and note the Polish guy there as well. This list is redundant to that one and anyone looking for living veterans will be redirected to it. Lafe Smith (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country Same as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.64.194 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete List is questionably historically accurate at this point anyway and if there is already a more complete article on this subject already as mentioned several times on this page, I see no reason for this to be an article. This article should have no special treatment that other articles have not been allowed. Lord Hawk (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as the Grand Army of the Republic dissolved only after the death of its final member, so should this article remain until the death of its final member. At this point it should be turned into a redirect, thus preserving the article history.--Echetus Xe 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a list WP:NOT. That's policy. Make it an article instead. KoshVorlon_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, and I don't see how a three-person list really does much good; however, some people see the value in it, so I'd say let it die when its remaining occupants do. Once we're down to one or none, this can be deleted, but I suppose with three left it's a little early. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I agree the article should be kept available until the natural attrition of the remaining people on the list, removes the relevance of the article. [User:Gorman33]] (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.144.97 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. I'm rather suprised by this nomination, it smacks of frivolousness to nominate a list for deletion because of a disagreement over one entry (even if that entry makes up a third of the list). I'll also respond to the the only policy-based argument for deletion, which was KoshVorlon's claim that this list violates WP:NOT, which makes me question: which clause? It doesn't qualify as a violation of WP:NOT#OR (the dispute not withstanding), WP:NOTMEMORIAL (how can it memorialize a person who still lives?), WP:NOTDIR (not a directory), nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE (a very clear and specific scope that is not a trivial intersection). However, it does seem rather redundant to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, and will eventually have to be redirected there once the last of the survivors die (which is likely to be soon, given thier advanced ages). Most of the information that is unique to the current article can be easily moved, and the edit history preserved with a redirect. I alo not with suprise and mournful regret to see that Frank Buckles passed yesterday, perhaps the impetus behind this motivation? bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's the best merge/redirect target. This list has information that the "by country" list won't have. Either Green or Choules will be the last remaining UK veteran, and only one will eventually be included on the by country list. The two lists have different scopes; one is by country, while the other is by date of death regardless of country. So a merge wouldn't really work. If anything, an eventual redirect to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-11 would make more sense than a redirect by country article. Also, the "by country" article doesn't have "World War I era" veterans, while the "veterans who died in 2009-2011" one does. So Kowalski will eventually go on the 2009-2011 article, while the by country article already has Stanisław Wycech for Poland. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green and Choules are both already on the by country list. One of them will presumably pre-decease the other and will be removed from both lists at the same time so the fact that there are two left from one country doesn't argue for maintaining both. Lafe Smith (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion argument. Re. Jozef Kowalski - argue it on the talk page, add a footnote, or whatever. That still leaves the other two. Chzz ► 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Articles subject has received a plethora of news coverage: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. No need to delete until the people concerned are no longer with us and the article's subject is therefore N/A. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy keep - aside from the article being a notable intersection and near a natural death anyway, the nomination statment is very odd, indeed; aside from its using in Korea and the Gulf War in an attempt to illustrate a point, which I'm not quite sure I've got, it's invalid per the deletion policy: disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrus Mitt

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He has apparently played for Estonia's national beach soccer team, but I don't believe that generates sufficient coverage to grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they fail WP:GNG, and WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant. Beach ball is not the same as football and the same rules don't apply. Additionally, the references do clearly not go into non-trivial detail of the players. (sorry for adding this comment at the top, but I was unsure where the last comment ended. Feel free to move it to the proper place) Cheezburgerboy (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all players fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, maybe you check again? Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Read Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Player notability again! If playing in association national football team makes person notable, then playing in beach soccer national team makes also. You can't follow the "has not played in a fully pro league" rule and ignore that they have represented national team. This Afd is really non-sense. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you read WP:NSPORT also. It explicitly states that it is a presumption of notability and not a guarantee. All three of these fail WP:GNG which is prerequisite to meeting WP:NSPORT. Furthermore, WP:NSPORT says absolutely nothing about beach soccer. The reason the national team clause is in there is because the national football teams generally generate a lot of coverage. The same cannot be said for beach soccer national teams. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they fail WP:GNG, they have refs. If it is needed, I could add some more. And beach soccer generates enough coverage. Do you want to say that there should be no articles about beach soccer players? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I point you at WP:NSPORT. With one exception, all the sources listed on these articles are database entries, which WP:NSPORT explicitly defines as trivial, or match reports which are equally trivial and therefore insufficient for granting notability. The one exception does not even mention the players in question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have to take your words back. They are nicely referenced and don't fail WP:GNG. There are no database entries' sources. I don't understand why would you like to delete those articles. Haven't you thought about it takes away people's motivation to contribute to Wikipedia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're improvements to the article are certainly a step in the right direction. I still don't think it's enough but it's very close. To explain my reasoning, I am going to provide my evalutation of the sources currently listed in the articles.

Andrus Mitt:
Source 1: Only a passing mention of the player in question, insufficient to establish notability, but probably not intended for that.

Shows that he was nr 3 top scorer in the league and played for Augur/Betoon. This page is the official Estonian Beach Soccer Association, which also covers Rannajalgpalli Meistriliiga. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2: Interview with the player. In depth, and detailed, clearly not trivial. This is kind of source that can establish notability.
Source 3: Short article. Certainly a useful source, but fails WP:NTEMP in my opinion.
External Links: Both are database entries, and therefore not relevant to notability.

It is a part of long interview (which got lost from Estonian Beach Soccer Association site when new homepage was opened). Maybe this ref is unnecessary? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Arst:
Source 1: Database entry, see above.

SK Augur's homepage is not actually simply a database. There are news and lots of info about beach soccer, futsal etc. This ref supports achievements, number of national games and height/weight. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2: A series of match reports with only passing mentions of the player. Not enough for notability.
Source 3: Database entry. The prose in this profile makes it a bit better than your average player profile, but still trivial.

Database?? This ref actually covers his career in USA 2003-2006. Quite good, I think.Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4: An interesting source. It explicitly points out that Futsal is not professional. Again, its the kind of detailed source that can establish notability, but not its own.

Yes it is good ref. And don't forget that Arst has played for beach soccer national team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But source 5-7? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External Link: Database entry. Not relevant.
Andreas Aniko:
Source 1: Detailed coverage of the subject. This a good source.
Source 2: I don't really see how a profile of Andrus Mitt is relevant not only to notability, but to the article in general.

This ref shows that he plays for Tallinna Kalev, I could put it in external links. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3: Again, this source does not mention the player in question. It does not confirm the information it is intended to.

Again what? But yes, you are right. I removed it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4: Certainly useful in terms of its content, but this source also fails WP:NTEMP.

Could you explain more closer. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 5: List of match reports. Trivial.
External Link: Database entry.

In each case there is one source that indicates the player in question may pass WP:GNG, but one source is never enough establish notability. I would also like to see the content of these sources synthesised into the articles, but that's just a request, and has no bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect all refs to grant notability? Anyway, definitely more than one grants it. In my opinion national team appearances themselves grant notability. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 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, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. feydey (talk) 12:42, 23 February 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, J04n(talk page) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first blush, an article on the third highest scorer in Estonian beach soccer seems pretty obscure and trivial. However, after reading the beach soccer article and considering Pelmeen10's arguments and improvements to the article, for me the gentleman is (barely) notable enough to merit an article. I can't believe I'm defending the 'third highest scorer in Estonian beach soccer' but there you have it. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Clabough

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

This is a professor who does not seem to meet WP:PROF. The citations are from websites and journals that also seem to be non-notable. He is the editor of a very small literary journal, but it may not be notable either, and even if it is he cannot inherit notability from it. Separately, there are WP:COI concerns, as he has apparently assigned an assistant to edit this article (see here). Cmprince (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. I see no non-trivial coverage of him. Cheezburgerboy (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons stated above. I have been particularly concerned about the amount of COI editing, which extends beyond the editor referred to by Cmprince. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence from the existing references in the article or from Google Books, News or Scholar that this person would meet WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. (Can't help noticing this COI issue bears a striking similarity to the final item in WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news#Briefly.) --Qwfp (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add to the above: GS h-index of 2. The fact that the article has some pretty obscure WP:OR (Clabough lives on and manages a farm) and that the creating acct has only edited this article and the one on James Dickey Review (for which Clabough is the editor) suggests this may be little more than a vanity page. Interestingly, there is another acct that has also only edited these 2 articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rejoinder. Seems nom has already established that the second account is the subject's assistant. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I did get this info, but I'm not the nom on this. Had tried for CSD and it was declined. No big deal but just setting the record straight. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rana (film). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raana

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

Another article explaining the same purpose exists in a much elaborated way Vensatry (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rana (film) EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rana (film) where the topic is far better covered and well sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow redirect. Easy one.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prezvision

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

No indication of notability Eeekster (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Could probably be speedily deleted as advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was speedy'd once before. Eeekster (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Non-notable Power Point plug-in. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Cannot see notability, publisher's site appears to be in Chinese or a similar language and the publisher is arguably non-notable also. There is a whiff of COI about this, and a rather whiffier pong of advertising. Excuse unencyclopedic words. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kounta Diop Faye

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, as above.Delusion23 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal data manager

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

Same as personal data assistant? Marcus Qwertyus 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By no means do I claim to be on the cutting edge of high tech, as I'm a slow learner and 58 years old. That being said, I think that there is a divergence between "personal data manager" and the somewhat outdated term "personal data assistant". I think the first term applies mostly to password management software, while the second term used to be a Palm term for the hardware/software combination that we now call a "smart phone". By the way, I'm editing on a smart phone now. If other editors agree with my analysis, then I recommend Keep, with a recommendation to improve and expand the current article. I await the thoughts of other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you talking about a personal information manager (PIM) ? 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote can be added to PDM since nearly all modern usage of PDM actually refers to the PDA. Assuming what you said is true, is it notable enough? Marcus Qwertyus 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not the same as a smart phone any more than a sailboat is the same as a speedboat. These things were around for at least a decade. Stop trying to erase history. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you mean the electronic date book/calculator/alarmclocks, like the Casio BOSS? Or PIM software like SideKick? 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Comments on Virginia C. Bulat for deletion[reply]

Keep for now, but I'd like to see some expansion to the article as it's not very informative the way it sits. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza

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

No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Looking at the references provided:

The Christchurch Press ("Bombing Shames All")
it confirms that he has written an article (he is the writer of that article), and the details which he provided the news organisation of what he is doing - not independent, or evidence of notability
Humblevoice - "Contains scans of more publications"
his own account at Humblevoice. Scans of publications on a person's own website do not meet the reliability criteria - and the 3 articles scanned merely confirm that he has written a couple of newspaper articles (at least one is the same as the Christchurch Press one)
The Dominion Post and The Press ("Egyptians fear for families")
one line quote from him (Christchurch writer and philosophy and religion researcher Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza said that without a secure Egypt, there was little hope for a healthy and secure Middle East or North Africa.) - not significant coverage; also, the description of him was probably from himself to their reporter (in the same way that if I was interviewed by a newspaper reported and asked what my job was, they probably wouldn't look into it too much, unless I was the main focus of the article, which he wasn't in this one)
Utopia Creations
no evidence that this independent film organisation is notable, or that his work being on it mark him as being notable
TVNZ Interview
link does not work, and I cannot find any mention of him anywhere on the TVNZ website

Overall, I see no evidence that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:COMPOSER PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG per lack of independent sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following responses were interspersed within my nomination statement above. I have moved them here (before Kellyrussell34's 'keep' comment). The only additions are bullet points showing which source Kellyrussell34 is referring to above. I have also added my responses as would be normally done. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Christchurch Press:

It confirms he is an active writer. well done! so the news organisation published a false description? how else will we get a description of what he does? the paper is not his site.. totally independant.. and how do u know if he provided the info or if they knew him and invite dhim for example? he had published there before!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms that he wrote this story with his byline. I could find examples of stories written by a friend in 3 different newspapers, but they would not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Writing a newspaper article with your byline is not enough to meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humblevoice:

but the scans even though they are on his site are CLEAR evidence of being NOTED in independant sources.. it is simply the place where i found evidence of some of his writing. this is absurd.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires them to be sourced at the original source. Playing devil's advocate, I could put some newspaper articles on a website I have access to, which would show my byline - but it would have been altered, as I am not a writer! I am not saying that this has been done, but Wikipedia has no way of verifying that the scans are unaltered, unless they are on the original source's website PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominion Post and The Press

ye sthe Dominion example is not major but is yet ANOTHEr example of activity consultation from an INDEPENDANT site and a large paper of the nz capitol city. and it confirms YET AGAIN that he is an active writer and researcher in such and such!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, "without a secure Egypt, there is little hope for a healthy and secure Middle East or North Africa" is hardly a world-expert speaking! It could have been a quotation from almost anyone in the area who the reporter spoke to. Again, this is nowhere near satisfying WP:CREATIVE PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Creations

UTOPIA site: not HIS site. the thing shows his music video.. clearly one of many online example sof his compositions--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC) what else do u want? is this because he is arabic?!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was his site - but I could find nothing to show the criteria that Utopia uses for choosing whose work they have on their website. Do they put their friends' work there? Do people pay to have their work put up there? Do Utopia pay people for their work? Without knowing the providence of the website and the work, we have no way of knowing. I could find no information about the website, who owns it, etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Is this because he is Arabic?" - frankly I find it insulting that you effectively accuse me of being racist/culturalist. I have clearly explained why the sources are not suitable, and linked to the two guidelines for inclusion (more of this below) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TVNZ Interview

TVNZ (a major TV station in NZ covering a major event live on TV 'significant coverage?'which confirms him as sociologist and translator) website may not keep things foreva... here is a link where it is clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NYv5Bx9uRY It is his official fan page but clearly shows the interview. There are two interviews at least on radio on the Humble Voice account. I am sure there is more and i shall look for it. He is clearly involved in research for that academic journal also.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the TVNZ coverage - and verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Youtube is not counted as a reliable source, his own websites (and fan pages) are not counted as reliable sources. You say that he "is clearly involved in research for that academic journal also" - could you provide a link to somewhere at the journal's official website which shows this? I had a look, but couldn't find it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - all the papers the tvnz interview and radio interviews are NOT his. and they simply show that he has in fact published and is publishing actively and being consulted actively. I have trie dto contact his websites to ask for more info but no reply yet.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you really need to read (I'll admit that I did not mention these before in our discussions, because they are clearly linked in the welcome message at the top of your talk page, so I assumed that you had read them):

All information in Wikipedia should be verifiable
Such information should be at reliable sources which are independent of the subject
Each subject should meet the General Notability Guidelines

As I said in my nomination here, and on the message I left on your talk page, there are two subject-specific notability guidelines which he needs to meet:

Notability Guidelines for people: Creative (including authors and journalists. The 4 criteria, of which at least one must be met (and which I could find no evidence of him meeting), are:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Notability Guidelines for Notability (Music) - Composers. The 6 criteria (of which at least one must be met, and for which I could find no evidence of him meeting) are:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

I acknowledge that I may have missed an independent, reliable source that shows that he meets one of these criteria, in which case I would be grateful if you would give a reference to such source(s). Failing that, I do not see under what criteria you believe that he qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the General notability guideline? These are confirmations of more 'significant coverage' in terms of publications and interviews than most ppl.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be my final comment on this AfD, as I have explained on my talk page. Firstly, "most people" are not being considered for inclusion on Wikipedia; secondly, whether "most people" have less coverage or not is not relevant to this AfD - we are discussing this article, not any other ones; thirdly, I have explained above in detail why the confirmations of coverage do not meet the criteria for independent reliable sourcing. I will leave it to other editors to comment further at this AfD as appropriate. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I do think it is absurd that the video on youtube doe snot count - so you are telling me he didn't in fact appear on TV.. maybe they archive the videos for only a few days. It was on their site. Also, at least one of the full articles written by him are not on his site. And how else would one put records of news paper publications except by scanning them? Anyway that is what I will say on the talk page and we shall see. I think the sign are that people on ere are stubborn ... there are some really silly stubs and articles on wikipedia. I do not quite understand how many articles you want. Your 'firstly': i used that phrase not to suggest that most ppl are for wikipedia.. i don't know why you need to tell me that. I am saying he is active and we can see it on the net with our eyes and hear it too. You are just refusing to accept the sight and sound of the TVNZ interview as if it didn't happen because it i son youtube instead of TVNZ's channel... that the delete their videos is normal. That the news papers don't keep article sonline forver i snrml.. people then scan them and put them online.. clear evidence of publication and activity. oh well.. but do what u want!.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't say that I've ever seen an article that questions its own notability, i.e. "However, there is no indication of a release date for any of the musical work", but here we are. There simply does not appear to be any way that this person meets out general notability guideline. Fans voting for videos at NZ's myspace music pages is all well and good, nice to see him being quoted in regards to the Egyptian protests, but none of that supports notability for a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ you are not addressing what i said. there is 'coverage' in papers, on tv and on radio of his none musical work. You did not see it? So he is not an active writer in several major NZ papers and on its main TV station and on etc etc? is it not clear from the internet that that is real? i show clearly that there is coverage..and in famous publications, repeatedly, and it is ridiculous not to accept the evidence of the TVNZ interview on youtube ( you can hear and see it!) or the clear scans of his work or the article on the press website (u can see thosetoo, right?). So what if he has not published music he published writing and appeared on major national media. How many more articles do u need? how many more interviews? for some one to meet your criteria! --kellyrussell34 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ you know there are ppl on wiki with articles that basically just appear on trashy magazines writing nothing doing nothing being interviewd about no major world events. is that more notable? --kellyrussell34 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you can always make more comments, but please do not do so with a bolded "keep" over and over. You can only "vote" once in an AfD. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has potential. There are several publications, interviews and radio appearances in his nation. I agree with above, he has clearly had coverage.--Raptureboy 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptureboy — Raptureboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is FALSE and not relevant: this is a list of contributions I made so far:

12:43, 28 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza ‎ (irrelevant and untrue)

01:06, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Peggy Payne ‎ (This one needs a lot of attention. Established subject.) (top)

01:01, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Fetish culture ‎ (capitals) (top)

01:00, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Fictional book ‎ ('a mode of') (top)

00:59, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Jack Yang ‎ (cleaning up) (top)

00:57, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Hanoi Contemporary Arts Centre ‎ ('that showcases') (top)

21:48, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Comeytrowe ‎ (Break paragraph.) (top)

21:47, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Bosavern Penlez ‎ (Clean up.) (top)

21:41, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Shore rockling ‎ (top)

21:40, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Nemacheilus jordanicus ‎ (top)

21:25, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m PP Mi-D mine ‎ (top)

21:23, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Parque de La Granja ‎ (top)

21:23, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Hopak ‎

21:20, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Communist Party of Canada (Ontario) candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election ‎ (top)

21:19, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Edgard Varèse ‎ (Shorter is smarter.) (top)

21:18, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Vitalic ‎ (Passive voice) (top)

21:16, 24 February 2011 (diff | hist) m Vangelis ‎ (top) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptureboy (talk • contribs)

Delete Lacks coverage about Abaza. Articles by him do not make him notable. A few quotes from him are not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many article sand interviews does a person need for notability. You do not at all show why your 'judgement' about this being not enough o significant coverage should hold. You just tell us its too few. without answering why it doe snot (which i think it clearly does) indicate that this is an active personality with local coverage? There is no quote such as 'at least this no. of article smust be found on the internet' or at least more than this number of interviews in major tv or radio stations' he has enough of each of these things at least and that is what we can find on the net. it indicates he has coverage and confirms info in the article.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "How many articles...?" Let's start with finding a first which has coverage ABOUT him. The tv piece was just a New Zealand based Egyption (as appears under his name) that the NZ press could talk to. There has not been significant coverage ABOUT him, just two trivia this is basicly who he is intros. Him writing stuff is not about him and is not independent of him, no matter where it is hosted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
some stubs have barely one refrence... i do think you are not looking in the context fairly.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Christchurch Press, The Dominion Post, TVNZ are notable. This three references are independents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.74.40.248 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — 86.74.40.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Summarising the arguments for keep...WP:ITEXISTS, YouTube video, "local coverage", interviews (WP:PRIMARY), articles written by him (ditto), etc. Second keep !vote was user's first edit on Wikipedia after registering; other keep !vote is an IP with no other contribution history. Articles published by somebody do not establish notability regardless of the repute of the publisher; there are no secondary sources establishing notability. If they are found, no prejustice against recreation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC) *Note: This !vote was struck out by The Bushranger, as he relisted the debatePhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what "exists" is evidence of work and apperaance son major media in his country. no one has addressed how many damn appearances are needed. he is not just mentione din article she writes them. the youtube video shows the live interview. i can't find it elsewhere. so what if someone made a contribution to this good on them! Do your votes not count unless u have been here a year or two!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questions you are asking are not relevant in terms of meeting the Wikipedia's general notability guideline; we don't tally up tv appearances. Thousands of people are interviewed on tens of thousands of news stations day in and day out around the globe. That doesn't much matter for the Wikipedia. Find reliable sources that discuss Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza in-depth; not simply videos of tv shows on which he appears, and not simply columns he has penned in newspapers. There's also a special guideline for journalists and the like, WP:CREATIVE. Does this person meet any of those 5 criteria? Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes he is regarded as important enough to be consulted as an authority in his country. also he meets general notability by having coverage in significant media. how 'in depth' do u want? --kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is that important and meets the WP:GNG, please provide sources by people who are writing about him, not articles written by him. Articles written by him do not constitute 'significant coverage'. also, AfD is not voting; anyone can contribute, but if somebody's first, or only, post is to a contentious AfD discussion, it can give the impression, rightly or wrongly, of their being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Finally, please remember WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha ok so now it has to eb article s'about him'..sure i will try and look. but 'it exists' is not the argument i made. it exists and indcates/implies that he is sought after and respected in his small country.... articles 'by him' are entirely relevant to an entry about a writer! i don't care what you say about those others who voted. they are free to start at any time do anything your 'impressions' are your own not law or truth--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, one needs proof. You, here, just saying "he is" simply isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how am i not civil? is that your next mode of attack?--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of use of profanity in your arguments is the concern. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may very well be the most confusingly formatted AfD I've ever read through, and it certainly seems like some of the editors may be SPAs. That being said, the sources don't seem to indicate notability, so I !vote delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whats an SPa and why is all this not 'coverage?--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Coverage' is Secondary sources discussing the subject of an article. An article sourced only to primary sources, especially a biography of a living person, does not establish that somebody or something is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok.. first yes im obviously a fan and my concern right now is this but it is not my single purpose and my account will be used as i wsh. the sources do not belong to him at all. TVNZ doe snot... niether do any of the papers or radio stations... that he has a scan on his website of something FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE still shows u the external source. thanks fora nswering btw...i dont know most of ur rules.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, asking is how we learn. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article is fine. 3 'delete' and 3 'keep'--Raptureboy 03:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally said that I probably wouldn't comment here again, but as it has been relisted, I have a couple of comments which I would like to make, even if it is repeating what I have already said!:
1. We need reliable sources which are independent of the subject. YouTube videos are not counted as reliable. In theory, I could record a TV interview, edit it and put myself in it, and then upload it to YouTube. There is no independent verification that the video on YouTube has not been edited. However if the video was on the original source's own website (i.e. the new organisation's official website), we know that it is the unedited version - if it is anywhere else, we cannot guarantee that. Likewise with scans of newspaper articles: scans can be edited, and we would have no way of knowing that. If the scan is on the newspaper's official website, then we know that the scan is unedited.
2. We need evidence that "he is regarded as important enough to be consulted as an authority in his country": having a one-line quote does not indicate this. I have had a one-line quote in a newspaper when I was asked a question by a reporter, but that does not make me an authority or expert! Another friend who runs a housing association has written articles for newspapers, and had several interviews in both newspapers and on the radio - but she would not meet the criteria, even though she could reasonably be counted as being an "expert" in her local community. Is there any where that someone (other than the subject himself) has written something along the lines of "He is widely regarded as an expert in ...."?
3. Having a byline is insufficient in and of itself to make someone notable. If I look in the London Evening Standard, I see several reporters who have submitted many full-page stories every year over the last few years, and yet they do not meet the criteria for inclusion. The criteria for notability are clearly shown here, as well as subject-specific criteria for composers here and creative professionals here. I have found no indication that he meets any of these criteria, using reliable independent sources to verify the information.

As such, I still feel that the article should be deleted. Now this will probably be my last contribution! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ohh ok so you are suggesting that he edited interviews to pretend he was on tv and to pretend he published articles? haha ok. even though clearly the press site at least has him online still... a youtube video counts in other articles. I have seen them. for example news reports are often cited which are on youtube and not the original news site. As soon as I find even more articles and refrences and videos to prove you all wrong i shall be back! thanks anyway.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not suggesting that - I am merely pointing out that we have no way of knowing, unless the interview is on the original source's site. What happens in other articles is irrelevant here - we are discussing this article - but even so, if the only source for information in those articles were YouTube videos, they could be proposed for deletion, as content on YouTube is not independent or verifiable. But as I said, we are discussing this article - if you feel that other articles should be deleted you can either propose them for deletion or take them to Articles for deletion.

Other articles having something does not mean that this should. Very rarely, vandalism remains on an article for a while without being noticed and removed. So, if you see an article which says "he is a great big booger and likes eating small babies" on an article, would you conclude that we can tell lies in other articles? Of course not! You'd say, no that should be removed!

Yes, the Press site has his article online - but that is not enough to demonstrate notability. Has he won any national/international awards for journalism? Has anyone written about him, other than himself. As I said above, just having a byline is not sufficient in and of itself to be notable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask the people who say that this article should be kept... which of the following 10 criteria does he meet:

Notability Guidelines for people: Creative (including authors and journalists. The 4 criteria, of which at least one must be met (and which I could find no evidence of him meeting), are:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Notability Guidelines for Notability (Music) - Composers. The 6 criteria (of which at least one must be met, and for which I could find no evidence of him meeting) are:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

I have still be unable to find any evidence that he meets any of these criteria, and no one here has provided any evidence that he does. All we have is that he has composed some tunes (but that he doesn't meet any of the 6 criteria above), written some newspaper articles (but doesn't meet any of the 4 criteria above) and has given a couple of one-line quotes (but with no evidence shown that he is regarded as an expert, an authority on a subject). If someone can provide evidence that he meets any of these criteria then I am happy to withdraw my nomination. So far, no one has. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the TVNZ interview. The presenter is clearly addressing him anyway. The Press and Dominion are big local papers.--121.72.80.173 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — 121.72.80.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have the substantial coverage which our usual notability requirements demand. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep i was told if outside sources describe him then its notable... well he announced on his site that the auckland museme has invited him... very prestigious and with another academic.. so soon u will be lal shown to be wrong.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

STOP voting more than once, please. You have been warned about this already. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. The split of people bringing their opinions to the discussion was fairly even; for those counting votes, "delete" had a slight edge. POV will continue to be a concern in any article of this nature, as well as reliable sourcing, although there has been substantial editing since the nomination. If problems are not resolved, the matter might be brought back up again. Mandsford 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Chilean sentiment

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

Despite Anti-Chilean sentiment does exist, there is simply not enough reliable sources to effectively sustain this article. Several users have expressed their concerns with this article. This article goes against (1) WP:Content forking, (2) WP:Verifiability, and (3) WP:NPOV. Much of this information can, is, and should be found at the respective bilateral relations pages that concern Chile. Reliable sources are needed to sustain many of the exceptional claims. Neutrality does not exist in this article as everything is centered on a biased "the world hates me" position. On a similar note, several of the other articles in this series of "discrimination" face the problem of lacking verifiability.

Additional Information

Let's remember that throughout the world neighboring countries generally don't like each other. In this sense, there exists HUNDREDS of "Anti-X" possibilities. This falls in the same note as those bilateral relations articles (there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of options; however, only highly notable ones are allowed to be articles).

Analyzing This Article

The introduction has no references, despite it has exceptional claims.
The body of the article does not justify anything in the introduction.
The "examples" section goes against Wikipedia:Content forking. This information can be and is better found (and, if it's not, it should be) at the respective Chile-Peru relations and Chile-Argentina relations articles.

If it exists, why delete it?

Given the highly controversial topic, it should have reliable references supporting the material. Obviously, this article does not hold the reliable references needed. Hence, it breaks the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule. Additionally, by being so obviously one-sided on the subject, the article breaks the WP:NPOV pillar.

Also, remember the example of the "bilaterial relations of x and y" articles that faced massive deletion due to their lack of notability (determined by reliable sources). This same situation happens with this article. No sources actually support any of the introductory claims of "anti-Chilean sentiment".

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting/Discussion:

Delete: As submitter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Actually, I disagree with all of your nomination. There is an anti-Chilean sentiment in those three countries, most of times. Merging the content with bilateral relations of something and john smith will not fix anything, this is not a hugely political problem, the article speaks for itself. Diego Grez (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason for the nomination is because it goes against the rules of Wikipedia. The article lacks the essential sources to even sustain its introduction. Your premises are that (1) anti-Chilean sentiment exists, (2) that bilateral relations articles will not fix anything, (3) it is not a hugely political problem, and (4) the article speaks for itself. Your third premise lowers the notability of the article. Your fourth premise doesn't make sense: articles don't speak. Your second premise talks about fixing, but the point of Wikipedia is to inform not fix. Your first premise is a given fact, but it does not sustain your conclusion of keeping the article. By your first premise, Wikipedia would never delete articles on everything that exists. My point is that Wikipedia should delete this article based on the broken rules that I presented (Content fork, verifiability, and NPOV). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:29, 17 February 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, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is not established as notable or even discussed in general. Of course when nations invade each other and try to take each other's land negative statements will be made. Half of the article is about one statement by one person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article cites only specific cases of people making negative comments about chileans, wich may easily be countered with people making positive comments. The general "anti-chilean sentiment" is just the basic rivalry between any neighbour countries, there's little specific to it. MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this reasons argued is that "anti-chilean sentiment" dosn't exist. Well first of all there are anti-xxxxx sentiments for every country be it Chile the United States Israel Ethiopia or Canada. Then it comes down to can we find sources of incidences of anti-chilean sentiment. These do not even have to reflect that the prejudice is very common but need to reflect that there are incidences of anti-chilean sentiment. This article has done this. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something "exists" does not mean we should have an article on it. I have not denied the existence of such feeling, I pointed that it is just the basic rivalry, and thus merely trivial. If this sentiment was something notable, we should expect manifestations of it more permanent than just quotes, such as influences on politic ideas, historical events, in the arts or social sciences, etc. MBelgrano (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. None of us are denying the "existance" of Anti-Chilean sentiment; however what it comes down to here is notability and verifiability. The subject is neither notable or verifiable. Citing the statements of a General who said he would send back invaders (in a war) in trash bags, is not an example of "anti-Chilean sentiment". At the most, it serves as an example of how crudely some military officers view the subject of war. The problems the statements caused (not the statement by itself) are notable enough to be in the Chile-Peru relations article. However, this has nothing to do with "Anti-Chilean sentiment". I'd delete that whole section since it has nothing to do with the article, but since the subject is currently under review I will refrain from editing the article until a solution is concluded.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following two pro-delete statements made by Likeminas ([26]) and Andres Chile 123 ([27]):

Delete:What a waste of web space this page is. my goodness.--Likeminas (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~:I totally agree. Please, delete this article.--Andres chile 123 (talk) 00:07, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last two 'delete' votes above were comments made on the article's talk page, that were moved here to be counted as 'Delete' votes. I'm not sure about the validity of that...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They asked for the deletion of this article in the talk page of the article. Their decisions directly concerning this discussion cannot be ignored.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except they both called for deletion on the talk page several months before the AfD was created. 'Transplanting' calls for deletion from the talk page of an article to be counted as delete votes in an AfD smacks of votestacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I smelled a flower which had the scent of a rose, but it was a daisy. You are presenting a possible "votesacking" accusation despite the link you provide in no way supports your claim. As with my flower example, your perception is invalid if it does not follow the rules. I would contact those users, but if I did then I would be canvassing votes. Since you seem interested in their more current opinion, and being a neutral party to this discussion, why do you not contact them?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the letter of votestacking, but it does violate the spirit of the rule, IMHO. However, I understand it was done in good faith, no worries. :) Directly contacting them, regardless of who did it, would be canvassing; however, a notification to WP:CHILE about the discussion would not be, and so I've done that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a smart decision. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is inherently POV and appears to be a content fork of Chile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - WikiProject Chile has been notified of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest the nominator and the voters to have a look at here. The "sentimiento anti-chileno" (anti-Chilean sentiment) is widely discussed and, although I agree the article can be an easy POV-pushing spot, there's nothing wrong with having an article on this. Diego Grez (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestion. I would like to suggest you look at "Sentimiento anti peruano" ([28]), "Sentimiento anti argentino" ([29]), "sentimiento anti colombiano" ([30]). Essentially, the conclusion is that everybody hates or dislikes someone in this world. Nobody who is voting "delete" is denying the existance of "anti-Chilean sentiment". However, this sentiment is not notable in comparisson to all the other "I hate you, you hate me" type of problems in this planet. Since there is no notability on the subject, it does not need a whole article dedicated to it (especially if the article is largely unsourced despite it has several exceptional claims). The many Foreign relations of Chile articles are the main outlets for any of this type of information. This "Anti-Chilean sentiment" article is not notable, verifiable, nor does it hold a NPOV.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then begin an article on the anti-Colombia, anti-Peruvian, and anti-Argentinian sentiments. The non-NPOV is fixeable, the sentiment is notable, and is verifiable. Diego Grez (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the "sentiment is notable, and is verifiable", you have the option (at this time, before any actual decision is made) to fix the three points I made which break the Wiki article rules: (1) WP:Content forking, (2) WP:Verifiability, and (3) WP:NPOV. I have explained each of the points in the opening statement of this AfD discussion. If none of the people in favor of keeping this article are able to actually address the three points which break WP standards, there is no other option but to follow the established rules and delete this article. Furthermore: The notability of this article is dubious for two reasons:

This article has been around for nearly 1 year. Since then, barely any contributions have been made to it; and the few that have been done are content forks and NPOV unsourced material that places the nations of Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina in extremely bad light.
In the Spanish WP, a logical place which should have this topic addressed, there is no such article.

Once again, the point of this is not to deny the existance of "Anti-Chilean sentiment", but it's not something that should have its own article as long as it fails so many different WP standards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has much improved since the nomination, and I thank the nominator for bringing this to our attention. There are 9 citations constituting reliable sources in the article now. I can see room for improvement still, but I am convinced that the article as it stands is NPOV. I am not convinced it ever was a content fork; it is perfectly normal for summaries of related points to be covered in related articles. I also feel that derogatory terms and prejudice are more suitable as the subject of this article than as the subject of International Relations articles, whose primary focus is diplomatic relations between states. Anarchangel (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 4 of the 9 citations all came from the incorrectly used Donayre speech. The following lines require verification:

Anti-Chilean sentiment refers to a diverse spectrum of prejudices, dislikes or fears of Chile, Chileans, or Chilean culture. Anti-Chilean sentiment is most prevalent in the neighbors of Chile; Argentina, Bolivia and Peru particularly in the later two that lost the War of the Pacific in the 19th century to Chile.

Hostile rethoric toward Chile and Chileans have historically emanated from the political elite of neighboring countries. In the case of Argentina anti-Chilean sentment rose high around 1900 due to border disputes with Chile, and Chile's rise to a regional power after the War of the Pacific. During the Beagle conflict in the 1970s anti-Chilean discourses were common as Argentina prepared for a war of aggression towards Chile. Anti-Chilean speeches in Argentina are common.

In Bolivia anti-Chilean sentment is fueled by Bolivian claims for territory in the Pacific coast. A common political discourse attributes, at least partly, Bolivia's underdevelopment to its loss of seaports in the War of the Pacific becoming thus a landlocked country.

The hilarious part is that even the term "Anti-Chilean sentiment" seems to be an invented term with an invented definition (WP:OR). All of these lines (above in italics) deal with "historical cases", however none of them actually have citations to verify any of those claims. If these paragraphs were to be deleted, all that would be left is a definition of the word Roto (which has its own article) and some Argentinean insult of Chilote. Your improvements Anarchangel are well-intentioned and on the right track, but the information you cite is the non-controversial one. The lines I present are all the controversial lines, including the opening statement which falls into WP:OR. The article Roto is actually more suitable to focus on the nationalist issues people have with Chile.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok MarshalN20 here we go "Anti-xxxxx sentiment" is a template. You can put just about any sociological group in their. None of them exist in a dictionary. Think about it you can say anti-gay and that is actually not a term persay. You can also say anti-government. This is not a term either. What is hilarious is how little you seem to comprehend the complications of the english language. Anti-Chilean sentiment is not a term but a compound set of words to discuss a topic. Much like "Discrimination againist people with HIV/AIDS". Thats not a term either.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please remember to focus on the content. Do not insult users. Second, regarding homosexuals or people with HIV/AIDS, using those matters as examples in a national discrimination discussion makes no sense. Third, and finally, do not change the focus of the discussion: no reliable sources cite the alleged "historical information" that is supposed to serve as support for anti-chilean sentiment.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to use OTHER STUFF as precedent, sorry. There are "Anti-XXX Sentiment" pages for Russia (Russophobia), China (Sinophobia), the United States (anti-Americanism), and Turkey (anti-Turkism). Coastal Chile is regarded with historical enmity by some of its neighbors. The topic is thus valid for encyclopedic coverage, in my estimation. This is not "Original Research" in the Wikipedia sense, it is an attempt to craft an article on a legitimate topic. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently POV. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 21 days with only one editor supporting the nomination. Looks like another "white whale" for Beeblebrox :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taquan Air

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

Another local airline in Alaska. All sources used in the article are the subject's own website. Nothing any better found in a search. This airline operates 8 small planes in Southeast Alaska, which has lots and lots of little local airlines like this because there are few roads in the area. Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unlike some of the other Alaskan air services that have been put through AFD, there does seem to be a bit more on this company although not enough for me to say keep. A 2007 air crash ([31], [32], [33], [34]) generated coverage but really its news about an air crash rather than about the company. It gets local coverage, but that doesn't really establish notability. The most significant sources towards notablist are [35], and [36] where the company is used as a case study or example for entrepreneurship and small businesses. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 February 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, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can book seats on this airline on Expedia. The air accident also shows that Taquan Air has been in the news. More work needs to be done to the article but I think it is a keeper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that you can book tickets does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument that one crash confers notability doesn't convince either. Such crashes are pretty common in Alaska, there are a few dozen every year. There are a few thousand small planes up here, flying in some very harsh conditions over rugged terrain with few opportunities for emergency landings. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete. Just found this reference which says that the airline is no longer in business: [37] Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Being defunct is not a reason for deletion, just as much as being able to book tickets is not a reason for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I called the phone number listed here and here, and got a recording identifying themselves as "Taquan" and saying flight schedules were on their internet site. The BBB page says, "The phone numbers the BBB had for this company are disconnected..." So I don't think we should rush to press based only on the BBB page. Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passenger airlines in the US are not lacking for being noticed, especially since 9/11. I had no trouble in adding two references and adding interesting material about this airline. I found a logo installed for the Russian Wikipedia and plugged that in. Plus they have been around since 1977. This is an ideal slightly obscure, referenceable, and notable topic for Wikipedia. I found a report from the US government about a crash of one of their airplanes in 2007. This particular accident seems to have worried the Ketchikan tourist industry bringing 900,000 cruise ship tourists to Ketchikan. So clearly this accident is of interest to US citizens who fly airplanes, tourists with the resources to take cruise ships to Alaska, the cruise ship industry, and the tourist industry of Ketchikan, as well as the air tour industry in Alaska. Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Perhaps airlines in general my not lack for notice, but this one still does. A report on the business being sold in a local paper doesn't establish notability, nor does an NTSB report after an aircrash. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply On the one hand, you will be looking at the fact that this company employs eight people ref with annual revenue of $2.5 million. But I see multiple elements here that widen the scope of notability. As a citizen of the US who has flown in an airplane, I note that such air travelers have a personal safety interest in that their government regulate public air transports. Under policy, the NTSB report has status as a national media noticing this company. This report has the names of five people that all concurred—the safety practices of the company are a target of the report, that the company's safety practices were not being adequately regulated by the FAA. In citing "ineffective FAA oversight of air tour operators' adherence to required weather minimums", the report draws attention to another government agency, the FAA, with a duty to notice and regulate this airline, that is not currently otherwise referenced. Another unexplored avenue in the article is that the name of this airline comes from native people ref. There is also the company Kootznoowoo Inc ref started four years before the founding of their airline, such that there is 27 years of history missing.

Previous reviewers in some Alaska-airline AfD nominations have put forward the idea that there is an inherent notability that comes from being a public transport. I agree. To give the force of reason for this view I have looked at the sociology concept and article [institution]. This article leads to [public service], which states, "Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors". I think the newspaper article draws attention to this status of Taquan as being an "institution", My main concern is to keep the jobs in Ketchikan and keep Taquan going, Salazar said. Taquan Air is a long-established brand name recognized for meeting the demands and expectations of Southeast travelers... Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable guideline in gauging notability for a company is WP:CORP which specifically states that there is no inherent notability, so this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines and changing that is outside the purview of this AFD. That the company has 2.5 million in revenue is not an indication of notability, nor is the fact that it employs 8 people. Especially when referenced from a directory entry. Nor is the age of the company. As for the NTSB report, we look to reliable sources for notability as they exercise editorial judgement of topics to cover. The NTSB is mandated to investigate every US civil aviation air safety incident. The fact that the NTSB has a report on this air crash is not because of editorial judgment, but because they must do it. So I fail to see how this establishes notability. And local press, is still local press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, There is more I could say, both in agreement and mostly disagreement (while acknowledging that you have more experience in these issues), but I want to reply on just one point. I believe that WP:Notability is just as applicable or more applicable than WP:CORP, and states that topics must be "notable, or 'worthy of notice'." This is the fundamental guideline, virtually any criteria may be applied to define "worthy of notice" that we as editors agree as applicable. Likewise any criteria may be applied upon agreement by the editors to decide that an article is NOT '"worthy of notice", even though the guidelines may suggest that the topic is notable. As I see it it all falls back to the force of reason and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to general notability, we don't use "virtually any criteria". General consensus as documented in WP:NOTABILITY that we use "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability. Both general and corporation specific notability guidelines are relvant, but I don't see how either is met at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. Earlier you said, "...this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines..." But, WP:N says,

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
And WP:N states, "Article...topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."
Reading on, WP:N states at the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <the WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice (emphasis added). Here it is clarified that the fundamental guideline is "worthy of notice", and that the WP:GNG is one example of satisfying the fundamental guideline.

The point is that it is not necessary to change policy to consider at AfD that public passenger airlines are in the sociological group called institutions, are part of the public sector regulated by the US government, and that each public passenger airline has status nationally. Just how and how much this influences other criteria, I'm not prepared to say, nor given the continuing stream of new sources I've found (Taquan was on the cover of Anchorage-based Alaska Business Review magazine in 1997) do I expect that there is a need to do so, but I think that this consideration should be on the table, and that this consideration should be available to related AfD discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability for airlines. Period. Full stop. Notability requires verifiable evidence and not just assertions that being an airline means they should be notable. If you've found such sources, please bring them forward for consideration. I'm always open to changing my mind, but this is the last I will say on this matter on notability guidelines as it seems we are going around in circles. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look fine to me. While a crash doesn't make an airline notable the attention the airline gets from reliable sources because of the crash, does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in general response to the whole notability discussion and which guideline to use: at many discussions of this nature in the past users were making up arbitrary criteria out of thin air, based on number of planes, government contracts, etc. There were calls for the relevant wikiprojects to establish a sub guideline. A series of conversations were held on the subject and the result was this guideline, which as you can see establishes that there is no "magic bullet" for airline notability. The idea that it is "public transportation" and therefore notable is illogical, all of these little airlines are open to the general public. Ketchikan also has water taxis, land taxis, an airport ferry, and city bus service.[38] This airline is but one small part of the transportation infrastructure in the area. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator supports the nomination with the statement that this carrier has "8 small planes", and here he states "...arbitrary criteria out of thin air, based on number of planes". I didn't need to go to a Wikiproject discussion to suspect that the criteria that might be suitable for this AfD would be more specific than what might be suitable for a policy discussion. This is because this is an AfD discussion specific to the US, and policy/guideline discussions at this stage in Wikipedia's life must be more general than how to apply criteria such as the 125 carriers in the US that are "certificated". Even if some participants in an AfD choose not to agree that it is relevant to the discussion, having standing as a "public sector institution" is a form of being noticed, and applies under the fundamental guideline, "worthy of notice". We now know that this particular carrier was at one time one of the largest in the state, the largest floatplane operator in the world, achieved FAR part 121 certification, and according to Google, 80 books have taken notice of the topic. Local, state, and federal governments all take notice. At the federal government we have the president, the senator from Alaska, NTSB, FAA, DOT, Forest Service, NOAA, and agencies I've not even heard of doleta, fbo, and bts to name three, and there is also the US Mail which is now ~~private~~ independent. State of Alaska has files concerning pollution cleanup at the old Ketchikan Air site, court cases, and Gravina Bridge access studies (the bridge to nowhere), local government ketchikan.ak.us for example lists this. Taquan has been on the cover of the Alaska Business Monthly (Anchorage), covered by the Alaska Journal of Commerce, covered by non-local newspapers at Thorne Bay and Sitka, nationwide coverage for the 2007 accident such as foxnews, usatoday, and msnbc. The accident was important enough that it is now part of aviation history. I don't agree that US citizens don't have editorial control over the NTSB, I think that we choose that they take notice of airplane accidents, and they don't have a guaranteed job. This was a matter of importance to the safety of cruise ship tourists and economics involving 1,000,000 passengers per year to Ketchikan. Even if my vote as a citizen didn't count, there is a strong bias in our government that because decision makers take public air transportation, they prefer safe public transport airplanes, and take notice of public air transports. I'm not personally aware that water taxis get federal attention; however, the attempt to obsolete that airport ferry has been a matter of considerable nationwide political debate. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of the bulk of that remark. From what I can gather you are asserting that tight government oversight of airlines confers notability onto those airlines. I don't believe that is the case. If a bus crashes through a guardrail and plummets into a river, the NTSB will likely file a report on that incident as well, that doesn't mean that the owners of the bus are automatically notable. I'm not sure what you mean about the president, there is nothing about any presidents in the article. Senator Stevens was involved in anice photo-op where he presented an award to this airline that was also presented to six other airlines that fulfilled the criteria of that program. You are mistaken to say that the U.S. Mail is a private enterprise, it was, is, and continues to be one of the Independent agencies of the United States government. I'm also not sure what your point is about the bridge to nowhere, which is a separate issue that achieved a much higher level of national attention. And you seem to have completely misunderstood my point about the airline notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "bulk of that remark" reports "significant coverage" in "reliable" "sources" "independent of the subject" = WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "confers notability", no, I'm not asserting that "notability was 'conferred'", the words don't even make sense.
whpq already referenced a book in which the owner of Taquan went to Washington to meet the president. To the extent that it is relevant, WP:CORP states, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."
I'm saying the same thing about the Gravina access studies as I said about the pollution analysis, these are some of the many documents in which the state of Alaska takes note of Taquan Air. Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm sorry that this seems to be getting caught up in semantics. Government oversight of the airline industry is obviously a notable topic. That does not mean that every enterprise that is subject to that oversight is automatically notable. That's what I meant by saying "government oversight of airlines confers notability onto those airlines." Since I gave a comparative example I'm not sure what was so nonsensical about that, but I think I've clarified it sufficiently now. Likewise, the President of the United States is obviously a notable person, but literally thousands of people meet the president each year. One person involved with an a organization meeting the president does not confer notability on that organization either. If the president made a speech that was largely about Taquan Air or some major national level policy decision was clearly influenced by this one crash of a small airplane that would be different. That the state of Alaska noted that Taquan Air was one of the airlines that would be impacted by the Gravina Island bridge also does not confer notability. Every other airline, cargo service, pilot, and passenger to fly in or out of Ketchikan would be affected as well. I can see that you are endeavoring on good faith to improve the article, which is great, but a lot of what you are saying here is not sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be dealing with some basic concept or concepts of notability beyond "worthy of notice" and "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". But repeating the phrase "confers notability" and giving examples of something that from my viewpoint only exists as your idea of what I'm thinking, and projecting that concept onto me even after I have told you that it does not represent my viewpoint does not move the conversation forward (sorry).

Here is a simple example of a non-trivial statement. The publisher is Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (State of Alaska, Juneau), reporting about the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan. It states, "Peninsula Point Seaplane Base. The State-owned Peninsula Point Seaplane Base has been abandoned for nearly ten years and is not currently maintained for aircraft use. This facility has a concrete ramp and one hangar. Rocks and debris at the entrance to this facility impede floatplane operations. Taquan Air leases space at Peninsula Point for aircraft storage."

So here we have an example of the State of Alaska noticing Taquan. This is a reliable independent source providing significant coverage about Taquan Air's use of the hangar at Peninsula Point Seaplane Base. Also note that the name Taquan Air is so well known in the context of floatplanes in Ketchikan that the agency doesn't need to give any more identification than the name. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You call that a significant non-trivial mention? One sentence in a planning document? That is an absolutely terrible example and the very definition of a passing mention with no depth of coverage. I am honestly flabbergasted that you would put that forward as an example of your idea of "providing significant coverage." I don't know what else to say except that your idea of what constitutes significant coverage is badly out of step with Wikipedia norms if that is what you choose as a representative example of such. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that you are aware that the civility of your response goes against those very norms that you claim to be representing. The word "insane" in the edit comment was not, I felt, a good choice to represent the norms, either. Please don't misquote me like you did twice, I said "significant coverage about Taquan Air's use of the hangar at Peninsula Point Seaplane Base." I'm not claiming to be an expert, but something that I see here is that you are having difficulty in fitting this example into notability policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I have misquoted you in that remark. In fact I copy/pasted the only quote from you in that remark directly from your previous remark. I don't think you have to be any kind of a Wikipedia policy expert to see that for what it is, a brief passing mention that does not actually discuss Taquan Air itself at all. We don't need anything beyond WP:GNG on this point, certainly: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So, yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how this example satisfies that policy, because it is excruciatingly obvious that it does not. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article now repeatedly cites this: [39]. I would not consider the website of the Peninsula Clarion to meet WPs definition of a reliable source. The Clarion is a free weekly paper that is basically a bunch of advertisements with a few brief, poorly researched stories thrown in to make it look like a real newspaper. I realize that is not something that would be immediately obvious from a web search, but I think if we took it to WP:RSN for review the answer would be that it falls far short of what we expect from a source. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no documentation to support the assertion that this newspaper's articles are "poorly researched". The article about Taquan Air has an Associated Press byline, who as far as I know have a good reputation. The idea that a free weekly newspaper in Kenai has a reporter 750 miles away in Ketchikan doesn't make sense. As for the newspaper itself, the page identifies that it is a division of Morris Communications in Georgia. According to this webpage the paper moved on from the weekly edition in 1978. As to whether or not the paper is free, this page shows a subscription price of $9 per month. Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well something's not right then. It is available for free once a week at locations around the town where I live, and it is mostly comprised of advertisements and stories of local interest only. I don't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went and got a copy to try and clear this up, it seems the free edition I see around town is something called the "Clarion Dispatch" and is not the main "real" newspaper. from Kenai. Therefore disregard my remarks about the Clarion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the article to show that the paper in based in Kenai, rather than Ketchikan, which is 750 miles away from Ketchikan, and added that AP is the author. Please analyze the relationship of this article/reference/source to (1) WP:N "worthy of notice", (2) WP:GNG, and (3) WP:CORP. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, if the entity is notable, there would be an article about in the Anchorage Daily News. And there isn't. There are some articles the mention the entity, but if I read WP:CORP right we are looking for coverage, something like at least a short feature on the entity itself. And if the Anchorage Daily News doesn't care about the entity, why should we? On the other hand... gee, it's a nice enough article. Someone went to to the trouble to dig up 27 refs and do all that writing, and you hate to just toss that away, and WP:CORP is just a guideline, and its not like the article is spam or anything like that. I know, we're not supposed to pay mind to article quality, but you kind of can't help that sometimes. I don't really know what to "vote", it seems on the bubble, but given all the discussion above then a no consensus to delete close would seem reasonable to me. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert begins here]

I think you are reading too much into WP:CORP. WP:CORP states,

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product."...A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.

As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" cannot be based on "trivial" coverage. WP:CORP helps with examples of trivial mentions:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,

the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,

the season schedule or final score from sporting events,

routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,

brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,

simple statements that a product line is being changed,

routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),

quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or

passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

"Significant coverage" cannot be based on "trivial" coverage, but anything beyond trivial (such as IMO the disputed AlaskaCoast document above) can contribute toward "significant". I also suggest looking at WP:GNG for this AfD, as this is an alternate criteria for deciding that a topic is notable. See also, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert ends here]

I agree this is a bit thornier than some of the other Alaska bush airline AFDs we've had recently. That an AP stringer in Southeast wrote an article that was reprinted on the Kenai Peninsula is better I guess just a local paper, but the Clarion is another local paper. I do not agree that the sheer number of refs are particularly impressive as many of them are actually Taquan's own website and several more are rather mundane government documents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability, did you state, "it is not acceptable to make up criteria out of thin air just to "win" at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)"? It appears to me that "rather mundane government documents" takes the form of "making up criteria". Is it not true that government documents fit under existing policy and don't need made up criteria? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Juneau Empire, and comment regarding Anchorage newspapers.

Anchorage is 750 miles from Ketchikan and in a different time zone.

Seattle is closer than Anchorage and is two time zones away in the other direction.

Berlin and London are by comparison 580 miles apart.

Juneau is 205 miles from Ketchikan, and the Juneau Empire provides coverage. I tried searching for AirOne which only lasted for a year, and found 16 hits (AirOne provided a nonstop connection between Juneau and Ketchikan). Searching for "Taquan Air" yields five pages of hits starting in November 1997, here and here. I think that these references from Juneau Empire alone satisfy (1) WP:N "worthy of notice" and (2) WP:GNG, and for good measure (3) WP:CORP is also satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 28 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reinstate my keep vote as a result of all the good work made by editors after my initial comment. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is an example of a "trivial mention" for Taquan Air. It fits with the example "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Unscintillating (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has lots of good infomation in it. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be enough coverage from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability states, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects...This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion...In particular, the following types of topics will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:..."All airline companies." FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have listed on the Discussion Page forty-six (46) refs from the article excluding those from taquanair.com. The text itself of these 46 refs is 22,000 bytes, in an article of less than 40,000 bytes. I also note that no one has disputed that the references from just the one newspaper Juneau Empire satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:CORP, either of which would establish notability. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can cover all cases of commercial air transport without it hurting too much. The length of references indicates that someone really wants it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am concerned that the ref-bombing is causing WP:PUFF, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that significant coverage of the festival outweigh the keep !vote(s); pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Raffetseder (2nd nomination) may redirect to Werner Raffetseder. J04n(talk page) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Festivals

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

Unsourced WP:PROMO by Dr. mullah (talk · contribs), who's very likely Werner Raffetseder (United Festivals founder) himself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Raffetseder. Dr. mullah (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who does nothing but spread the United Festivals link all over Wikipedia (see contribs). I don't see any notability for this "festival". bender235 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In his prize winning multimedia works about the garbage people of Manila and numerous corresponding activities (print reportages, radio and TV interviews, humanitarian project) Mr. Raffetseder has pointed out serious social problems. According to recent media reporting, in the past 10 years he has focussed on our endangered living cultural heritage and done vast field work worldwide. His latest initiative seems equally important and should not be concealed. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please name your sources? Where are these "print reportages, radio and TV interviews"? --bender235 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Raffetseder appeared in Austrian TV, ORF channel 2, on 31st January and 1st February 2011 (replay) being interviewed about variations of living cultural heritage and pictures of the UNITED FESTIVALS world archive being shown, as indicated in subline. The interview was given in the documentary film “Unter die Haut: Körper . Formen . Kunst” ("Under the Skin: Bodies . Form . Art") by renowned Austrian artist and filmmaker Gerald Teufel, who has several times co-produced with the interviewee before his time out of country. Raffetseder’s 10 years of field work abroad may be responsible for his minor internet presence, even though his latest 1-hour radio interview given on 5 Feb 2011, 14.00-15.00, mostly dealing with contents of the UNITED FESTIVALS initiative, is to be found online: Radio Orange94.0 (scroll and click loudspeaker symbol). Raffetseder’s latest print reportage “G’standene Mander”, also displaying living cultural heritage, with a short description of UNITED FESTIVALS main goal, was published in the Feb 2011-edition of the SERVUS-magazine (pages 88-96), a brand-new monthly released since December 2010 by Dietrich Mateschitz’s Red Bull Media House. Print copies available there, film copy at ORF. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all we have are some radio interviews, and a short article in a Red Bull corporate magazine. That is very little. I still don't see any notability. --bender235 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be accurate, within less than a month, we have one TV interview, one 60 minutes radio interview and one 9 pages colourful print reportage (2-4 pages is average here) in a high-circulation and top magazine, which is incidentially owned by Red Bull, but accrding to editorial, has been created to promote traditional cultures in the Alps-Adriatic Sea-area (Bavaria, Austria, South Tyrol, Italy). I think that’s pretty notable if we consider that these people have just completed vast field works to launch their campaign as a contribution to safeguard intangible cultural heritage. I am curious what's coming next. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put things in perspective: Radio Orange 94.0 is a small Vienna community radio. SERVUS is a corporate magazine by Red Bull with a circulation of barely 50,000 copies. And then there's the short appearance in this documentary on tattoo artists (BTW: is each of the artist in that documentary worth of a Wikipedia article now?). How in the world is that supposed to merit a Wikipedia entry? --bender235 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bender235. Sorry for the confusion. I am no sock puppet: you advised me to create an account and I did; that’s all. To put things further in perspective: 1) Radio Orange 94.0 is a local Vienna radio AND a well known meeting place of top Austrian people. Beyond Raffetseder let me just mention the film directors Michael Glawogger (Workingman’s Death, Megacities) and Oscar nominated Götz Spielmann who also showed up there for interviews. 2) With the SERVUS magazine, Red Bull has launched a top seller: 50.000 copies of the already popular magazine (that is indeed owned by Red Bull but has an independent editorial staff in Vienna, far from Fuschl, where Mr. Matschitz bottles the drinks) were planned for the first edition, now – 4 editions later – must be double or even more. Anyway, 50.000 copies sold in Austria correspond to about 400.000 sold in UK: isn‘t that something? 3) For most of the tattooed and pierced people who made statements about how and why in Gerald Teufel‘s ducumentary film, this was probably their very first time on air. For Raffetseder, after countless radio and TV interviews in so many different stations, this is routine. And you may have noticed: Raffetseder did not face the camera to show off tattoos or piercings, but as the founder of United Festivals (that will most hopefully not be deleted!) and as an expert to talk about special forms of body modification practised among South East Asian tribeswomen and during a Hindu festival, with significant pictures of the United Festivals world archive being shown. And by the way, Raffetseder's comments were far from blah-blah: both issues made their way into the English Wikipedia (please, see lemmata: „Kayan Lahwi“ and „Thaipusam“). --VuestraMerced (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Werner Raffetseder. Adequate references and notability. There are adequate publications and television appearances concerning the subject. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "adequate references" in this article. Not a single one of the references in the article even mentions "United Festival". --bender235 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that the 'reference' added by Nipsonanomhmata seems to cite from this very article? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more than one reference. Please be specific. By the way, the Werner Raffetseder article has survived AfD. Therefore the founder and organiser of this festival is considered to be adequately notable for Wikipedia. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did not "survive" the AfD. Raffetseder was just able organize some WP:MEAT. There's a second AfD ongoing. --bender235 (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unsubstantiated allegation. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforce my Keep. Hi. Yesterday, Sunday, March 6, Gerald Teufel's documentary was also shown in 3sat, broadcast "lebensart", between 0.35 and 1.35. So, in the meantime, United Festivals has crossed borders and appeared in Germany and Switzerland as well.

Moreover, to demonstrate the relevance of the founder of United Festivals, I promised at 15:39, 4 March 2011, to find out some mention about Raffetseder in notable German language papers, NOT written BY the discussed multimedia artist but written by others ABOUT him and his published works. And there is very much evidence of Raffetseder's notability to be found in libraries. Here are only a few (translated) examples arranged in chronological order. The library allows to scan and upload or send all this printed matter. I'll do if you need one or the other article in German original language. ORF Vienna maybe contacted day and night, from abroad under 0043-1-87878-0, also for issues concerning 3sat.

26 March 1995, Martin Himmelbauer in Kurier “Awarded: Photographic Report about Life in Rubbish. Guest of the Rubbish People. -- Eight Months An Austrian Spent With the Poorest of the Poor: About 30.000 Who Live on A Giant Rubbish Mountain on the Fringes of Manila.” (1 page, text and 2 pics).

07 May 1995: Theodor Scheffl in Wiener Zeitung “Life in Rubbish: About A Photographic Project of Werner Raffetseder” (1 page, text and 5 pics)

31 March 1996: Trude Sagmeister in Kronenzeitung „I lived with the Rubbish People. -- Babies Play with Rubbish, Old People Die in It, Men Collect It And Women Cook Dead Dogs. The World of the Rubbish People of Manila Is A Foul-Smelling Cesspool. Werner Raffetseder Has Put on Record the Unimaginable.” (2 pages, text and 5 pics).

02 August 1999: Unidentified author in News 31/1999 (Austrian weekly, see German Wiki) “Record of A Total Solar Eclipse. -- How the Viennese Book Author Werner Raffetseder Experienced A Total Solar Eclipse on the Island of Aruba.” (1 page, text and 4 pics)

02 August 1999: Unidentified author in Germany’s BILD “I Have Experienced the Latest Eclipse. – This Is How the Scientific Writer Werner Raffetseder Experienced the Latest Total Solar Eclipse” (nearly one page, text and 2 pics)

08 August 1999: Trude Sagmeister in Kronenzeitung „And Again And Again the Sun Rises. -- Total Solar Eclise. The Sky and Media Event of the Year. An Austrian Wrote THE BOOK for It. Reveals Tips And Tricks. And Makes the Business of His Life with the Superstar, That Is the Sun.” (2 pages, text and 5 pics)

12 August 1999: Norbert Swoboda in Kleine Zeitung „Next Time ‘Live’ -- Solar Eclipse: Viennese Author Werner Raffetseder Reported Live for the ZDF at Mainz Yesterday. He Missed the Wonder of Nature. But Soon He Will Travel to the South Seas And See the Next Eclipse in 2001.” (1 page, text and 1 pic).

Moreover, there are lots of book reviews to be found. Let me just mention two:

22 July 1999: Miloš Vec in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 167, p. 53: „Der Mast ist zu niedrig, der Mond zu hoch. – The Mast Is Too Low, the Moon Is Too High“ (eclipse book).

07-08 August 1999: Helmut Hornung in Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 180: „The Travelling Night“ (eclipse book).

Besides radio and TV-appearances where Raffetseder was interviewed about his multimedia works and other topics in Austrian and German stations, he was at least twice invited to ORF TV-broadcasts as the guest of honour:

31 March 1996: broadcast “Seniorenclub”, ORF channel 2.

07 August 1999: broadcast “Millionenrad”, ORF channel 2.

Hope this will help. --VuestraMerced (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AfD for United Festivals, not Raffetseder. United Festivals is not mentioned in any of your sources. I just checked the archives of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung for "United Festivals": no results. --bender235 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned further on top: yesterday, Sunday, March 6, being shown in 3sat, broadcast "lebensart", between 0.35 and 1.35, United Festivals has probably for the first time crossed borders and appeared in Germany and Switzerland as well. Please, do not forget, that these guys have just recently returned from 10 years of field work --VuestraMerced (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here I finally found some extra evidence as wanted by Bender235 (printed, but upload is any time possible): the February 2011-SERVUS print reportage "G'standene Mander" by Werner Raffetseder and Erich Reismann (that displays the colourful living cultural heritage of the Tyrolean town of Imst on 9 pages) ends on page 96, thereafter it is stated explicitly: "Our author Werner Raffetseder manages the initiative "United Festivals" for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage." (In German: "Unser Autor Werner Raffetseder leitet die Initiative "United Festivals" zum Schutz des immateriellen Weltkulturerbes.") Moreover, the December 2010-edition of the same magazine states explicitly on page 6: "Werner Raffetseder is an adventurer, world traveller and ethnologist. The author ("The Rubbish People of Manila") directs the initiative United Festivals to foster the safeguarding of our intangible cultural heritage. His reportage about the traditional Schemenlaufen of Imst appears in print in February. (In German: "Werner Raffetseder ist Abenteurer, Weltreisender und Völkerkundler. Der Autor ("Müllmenschen in Manila") leitet die Initiative "United Festivals" zum Schutz des immateriellen Kulturerbes. Seine Brauchtums-Reportage über das Imster Schemenlaufen erscheint im Februar.") --VuestraMerced (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with this. Just an advice to the admin reviewing this: don't be fooled by this obvious meat-puppetry here. Please check each user's contribs before assessing their comments. --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bender. I don't see anything in the article that would make this notable. The media attention was minor, and the article basically seems like promotion. The latter point is, in itself, not an argument for deletion, of course. This SERVUS reference (which is not available online, apparently), from the description above--"a short description of UNITED FESTIVALS main goal" in an interview with Raffetseder--does not look like reliable coverage from a secondary source. And even if--it's a short description, and apparently the only one. I am also not convinced by mention of the festival in an interview with him. If this is so highly notable and important, where are the secondary sources that specifically address this festival? Drmies (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforce Keep. A few final thoughts, before the end of discussion. Please, let us not kill birds with cannons and cry loudly for deletion, only because of alleged lacking notability. As we know from radio, TV and an Austrian magazine, United Festivals has – after finishing its long term research work abroad – finally started its media work, supposedly to be followed by more (just like the Wikipedia article tells). What seems most relevant to me for an initiative of this kind, is the artistic and publishing action and the question, whether the challenging objective can be achieved in the long term: awareness raising for cultural values, “promoting respect for diversity”, so that the intangible cultural heritage (ICE) won’t get completely lost. In this context, strongly considering the social importance of such commitment, I reinforce my vote for KEEP. UNESCO itself, in its Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICE, Article 1, appeals for awareness raising at a local, national and international level and expects, that all social forces on hand join it. On a local and national level (radio, TV, print) and even on an international one (3sat-TV: Germany, Austria, Switzerland) United Festivals could already start its media work, drawing attention to our traditions that account for an essential part of our identity. Of course, a lot of activity will be necessary, and probably a lot of volunteers and well-meaning supporters as well, to bring such a ship on course and – maybe some time – into the harbour. When it comes to such endeavour, let us not forget an old Chinese wisdom: Even the longest journey begins with the very first step (Laotse). And strongholds of information and knowledge, institutions like Wikipedia, should not underestimate its invaluable role to set things in motion and to speed up a change of mind: facebook has just helped to make revolution. Long story short sense: I cannot believe that United Festivals is just the vanity of a madcap (Raffetseder?), I believe it is more: the project we are discussing was started by a professional best selling author, who has lived for months with the ostracized scavengers of Manila, just to know what he is talking about. I shall, therefore, ask for support that this article will remain and be successively enhanced according to actions and to progress of the initiative: it will be an article that lives, of course, just like others and our living cultural heritage. --VuestraMerced (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we know from radio, TV and an Austrian magazine, United Festivals has – after finishing its long term research work abroad – finally started its media work, supposedly to be followed by more.

Then re-add the article once it actually gained notability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Neither are we a crystal ball, describing what might be relevant in the future "after media work has been done". --bender235 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, I am Werner Raffetseder, just found out that, unintentionally, I became the subject of the upper discussion. I confirm what the Wikipedia articles are stating about me and our “United Festivals” program. The articles are alright even though displaying only facets of my professional life and this project, of course. If I can contribute to reach a consensus, you may contact me at: unitedfestivals@gmx.net. greetings, WRA. --195.70.232.230 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Venture Bros.. T. Canens (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team Venture

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

Clearly, this article does not have a citations and real world coverage to establish the notability and it contains original research. JJ98 (Talk) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the two Venture Brothers character lists, and redirect to the main article. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not having citations is not a criteria for deletion. Otherwise half the material in Wikipeia would qualify. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Only "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" should be deleted. (WP:DEL#REASON Point #5).

Team Venture is now at Jimmy Wales' other project, Wikia. Anarchangel (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable fictional organization. However, I have no objections is someone prefers this to be a redirect to The Venture Bros. or merge relevant plot info to List of The Venture Bros. characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 23 February 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) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added. Artw (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PLOT. I guess there's no real issue with having it redirect to the show, though. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nyla Hasan

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

I have not yet looked into whether any of the Mrs. Pakistan Worlds are independently notable, but from what I can determine, all of the news refs about Hasan's crowning appear to be running a press release issued by her own company, Global Image Strategies. I have also restored the WP:PEA text that I had previously removed to give editors a clear sense of the promotional in-house nature of this bio article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 22 February 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) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is a winner of a beauty pageant that only attracts sporadic coverage, so there is no automatic notability for being the winner of this pageant. Coverage about her in reliable sources appears to be non-existent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baltimore riot of 1968. Will leave the history in place for anyone who wants to take on the task of merging J04n(talk page) 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1968 Riot in Baltimore City, the Insurrection Act, and Federalization of the National Guard

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

Reads like some sort of original research or essay.

The only other contribution by this user appears to be an earlier version of this article at a title different only for one capitalized word that was speedied G1 on 4 December 2007. The next day, this version appeared. Raymie (t • c) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is poorly named, poorly written and poorly referenced. That being said, the topic is a very notable one - the extended states of martial law and federalization of the National Guard in Baltimore (and also in Wilmington, Delaware) in the aftermath of Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968. This is an important episode in U. S. history that has been largely overlooked. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ MERGE- Absolutely, positively needs to be renamed 1968 Baltimore Riot or some such. Encyclopedia-worthy historical event, clears notability guidelines. This article can be corrected through the normal process of editing and is thus a bad candidate for AfD. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to "Merge" since there is already a page on Baltimore riot of 1968, per the good find by Roscelese below. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 7 March 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) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not actually the same as Baltimore riot of 1968, which has existed since 2005? Can we just redirect it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Believe there is notability in this article, but that it would better serve wikipedia as part of Baltimore riot of 1968 article.Gobledeegooke (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is potentially a very difficult "merge" job, hopefully someone can be found to do it. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of call centre companies in Pakistan

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

contested prod. Unmaintainable list. RadioFan (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 February 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) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A very substantial amount of those listed would need to be proven notable before a list could be created. Even so, a category would probably be better anyhow. Ravendrop 04:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 06:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugdha Vaishampayan

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

my original nomination stands. overly promotional, and lacks reliable sources to meet WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [40] despite the glowing claims of the article. the sourcing contains many unreliable sources. note that the last AfD was surprisingly visited by a high number of single purpose editors. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 22 February 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) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tentative keep I must have missed this one last time around. The nominator is correct about the promotional tone, but such concern is a correctable issue and something I have myself begun to address... no, not done yet, but begun.[41] The subject appears to be creeping up on WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC, even if not in the United States or in English, and notability to Maharashtra (at nearly 100 million in 2001, the second most populous State in India) is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. In the spirit of curbing our systemic bias, and as en.Wikipedia does not seem to have many Marathi-reading Wikipedians, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to some of the Marathi language sources[42] as I work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons mentioned last time. She has competed in a notable competition(placing in the top five even), done a theme song for a notable show, and other things already brought up. The nominator should not be nominating the same article for deletion again just because he didn't get the results he wanted last time. WP:MUSIC 9. "Has won or placed in a major music competition." 10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show" Dream Focus 10:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been significantly improved since the last AfD, and in fact apparently significantly improved since this (current) AfD began. It now appears to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG in my view. And per MichaelQSchmidt. -- œ ^™ 04:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per Dust, and per the unanimous reaction of all other editors to this nomination (with me, we have an aggregate of 162,000 edits among us, so I don't think there is any real world concern about this !vote being shanghaied by SPAs). Furthermore, notability does not evaporate over time. Suggest this be snowed, so editors can spend their time more fruitfully elsewhere, as the result of this AfD is clear and keeping it open longer just wastes everyones' time. Furthermore -- note to nom .. AfD is not a forum for addressing your concerns about an article putatively being overly promotional.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Government Meeting Professionals

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

fails WP:ORG. gnews merely confirms that this group exists and holds surprise surprise meetings. [43]. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 23 February 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) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see event announcements and a passing mention that so-and-so is a member of the orgnsiation. This article is the only one that doesn't fit that mould and it's a one sentence mention. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Reformed Church, Epping

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

a run of the mill suburban church with no coverage [44]. seems more like a resume of its leader. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia) delete - ordinary, non-notable congregation. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote per below. St Anselm (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely NN. Not keen on redirect; text at Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia) doesn't mention church at Epping. It just has links to this article and el to church website.Bleakcomb (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'm changing my vote. St Anselm (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Tri State World Series of Golf

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

Sounds like a group of blokes who get together each year for a game of golf? Unless there are actually some references out there; searching hasn't found them, by the way. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to verify anything in the article by means of reliable sources. The only thing I've found are a few videos on Youtube which demonstrate an event exactly as described in the nomination – a group of mates having an annual game of golf. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Getting together with your buddies for some golf is not notable no matter what fancy sounding name you decide to give it when nobody bothers to cover it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Venture Bros. characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master Billy Quizboy

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

Completely unsorced, this character is non-notable and it has no citations or real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could have prodded this one, Sadads (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't see any problem here. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a problem here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Venture Bros.--though the term only has a few Google hits, so it's not a very widely used term and hence an even less likely search term. I would not oppose deletion. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added. Artw (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a purely in-world character description. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4D Cityscape

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

(Contested prod, no reason given and concerns not addressed.) There is no indication why this product is notable and refers to products "not yet released." Cmprince (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I think this is notable as the puzzle go given the gift of the year.

It was also featured in many newspapers and magazines.

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before:

As Willrocks10 said, one reason it is notable is that it was gift of the year in 2010. This is one of the main reasons. I am also sure, 100% positive to be honest, that there is a lot more information on this article. One improvement, for example, is adding the buildings to the city's that have 'More Landmarks' by the side of them. I will set out to do this. I have said it loads before and I will say it again-It is a new (ish) page that has more information to be discovered-or at least written down on this page. Yes, it does refer to not yet released, bu then again, there are products thet have. Please, bare with us. Thanks.

Thanks again, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The product is notable (see this source) but bringing this article up to standard would require a 100% rewrite from the ground up, so deletion might be better anyway. Consider this a Keep if someone else is willing to fix it, and a delete if not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi,

Thanks for the source. I will try to latch on to what you said and improve the page in all areas. I will get to work rewriting the page!

Thanks very much, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 15 February 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) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by submitter I tried to do a little research on this. So far, the only claim to notability seems to be the "gift of the year" award. Apparently, it is one of sixteen such winners [45] given by a trade group in 2010. It seems like the award is more of an advertisement than an actual competition. Regardless, the notability of the award itself is dubious. This article seems like a genuine effort to contribute to Wikipedia, and I do not have anything against the authors or their interests. I just don't think this particular product meets WP:N. Cmprince (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keith R. A. DeCandido. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Precinct

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

Non-notable book--article itself is unreferenced, and a Google News search finds only one review, on a blog. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 February 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) 23:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect the title to the author's name. The article is completely unsourced and constitutes original research. --B (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Hearing Science

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

PROD removed by anonymous IP without explanation or adding sources. Stated PROD reason was: New journal, cannot possibly be notable yet. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Currently there is almost no use of this journal as a reference by other sources, which likely indicates it has not yet reached a critical mass in terms of audience size or distinction. Thus, I can't support keeping this article at present. Perhaps after it has survived for some time it will gain in notability. Somebody might want to userfy it.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 22 February 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) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It might be notable one day" is not grounds to keep an article; if it becomes notable, it can be re-created. (I'm sure there's a policy page on that, but I don't remember where.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Planet of the Apes (franchise). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus (Planet of the Apes)

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

Barely-referenced article about the non-canonical name of a prop from Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Descriptions list "appearances" of the ship and are almost entirely unsourced, mostly describing plot elements of the films with WP:OR and speculation. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as written, as "Icarus" is described as a made-up fan name for an un-named fictional spacecraft, and the article is essentially unsourced plot recaps. So my worry is per WP:NOTMADEUP. HOWEVER the name and its application in Planet of the Ape has been picked up and searchable in multiple sources,[46][47] so a rewrite or a new article is quite possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Still, the overall topic of this article is about a spaceship that is merely a prop and is not a large plot element in the film series. It's a vehicle that appears for at most a minute in each of the films referenced. This article subject is not on the level of Starship Enterprise, which plays a major role in the Star Trek universe of fiction. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... I'm not at all arguing that the current topic is notable as presented, nor that it has the same notability as do theatrical devices like Starship Enterprise or Millenium Falcon... only that available sources are indicative that it might merit inclusion somewhere in context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planet of the Apes (franchise) without the plot details. Just indicate in which media the spacecraft appeared, and reference that it was called the Icarus by fans. This can be used as a citation for that. Shouldn't be more than 3-4 sentences at the franchise article, IMO. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 24 February 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) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason this page exists - a number of POTA enthusiasts are trying to find the ___location of the original POTA spaceship. This wikipedia page gives a central point of reference for this endeavor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.96.167 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Wikipedia is not a fansite nor is it a meeting point for film enthusiasts on a scavenger hunt for props. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Eric's comments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jairus (band)

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

Completely unsourced. The only news mention I could find was http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/kent/hi/people_and_places/music/newsid_8578000/8578927.stm ... basically, lists them along with a bunch of other bands as playing in the Sellindge Music Festival, which itself is a rather spammy article. The band's website is a dead link and I can't see anything here that meets WP:BAND. B (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if they are notable enough, but there's a review of an album of theirs in a Rock Sound (July 2010) issue I have. Postrock1 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They formed, they broke up, and they've reformed, with the a total output of one full album and some EPs and singles. Coverage in reliable sources is lacking. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply not enough coverage independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG and meets none of the requirements for WP:BAND. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Raffetseder

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

Blatant autobiography by Dr. mullah (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, watched this fellow a few days ago in our national TV, ORF channel 2 (broadcast "art.genossen"), talking about his UNITED FESTIVALS initiative after returning home from extensive field research. Also read his colourful reportage about cultural heritage in the feb 2011-edition of SERVUS magazine. Here is the link to his latest radio interview given on 5 feb 2011 (1 hour in German): [48]--212.186.126.13 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 February 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) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multimedia talent. Excellent photographs. Cute camel. Definitely a keeper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious? --bender235 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a multimedia talent who has been published numerous times, has appeared on television a number of times, he has won an award, he has setup an organisation to promote what he is most interested in, he even organised a Concorde flight so that an eclipse could be observed for a longer period of time. How much notability do you need? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing your own books does not merit notability (anyone can publish a book). Appearing on TV does not merit notability (or is every talk show guest notable now?). Winning the Theodor-Körner-Preis might be factor, but it's not enough. If Raffetseder is such a renowned "author, photographer and multimedia artist", where are the press reports, the reviews, the critial acclaims? WP:ARTIST requires: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Neither of these criteria are meet by Werner Raffetseder. --bender235 (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. bender235 is right: anyone can publish a book as a self-publisher, in a private publishing venture. Raffetseder’s “Solar Eclipse” book, however, was published by Hugendubel, one of Germany’s top publishing houses. It appeared in 3 different versions and was powerfully promoted, even by the German Bertelsmann and Austrian Donauland book clubs. Anyone can? I remember, this book was presented in a number of German and Austrian TV stations, and countless book reviews appeared in prominent German and Austrian gazettes, supposedly also in Swiss. If you need details, I'll check: not in the internet, of course (for 1999 that would be useless!), but in libraries. The eclipse-book was a top seller: number 1 (!!!) in Germany (see ZEIT best selling list August 1999), as was his book “Leben im Müll” (A Life in Rubbish, 1994), for which he was awarded the "Theodor Körner Prize" by former Austrian president Dr. Thomas Klestil. Successive reportages about the author and his 20 years of worldwide eclipse experiences appeared in Austria’s largest daily (Kronenzeitung: “Und immer wieder geht die Sonne auf“, 8 August 1999, of which I saved a copy) and in other daily and weekly newspapers. Raffetseder’s best known multimedia-projects (Asian Trilogy, A Life in Rubbish, Total Eclipse) have definitely been based on long term research, two of them in a number of different countries - United Festivals follows this pattern. I remember him stating in a newspaper interview (Kleine Zeitung?) just very shortly after the 1999 eclipse that he planned to leave the country for further research. So don’t wonder that at present his traces are hardly to be found in the internet: only very few print media uploaded their “stories” to the web 12 years ago. (But don't worry: if you want, I'll find out all that print stuff in libraries, I'm a retiree...). And, please, allow me a final consideration about comparing the average guest of a TV talk show with an all-round multimedia talent that is Mr. Raffetseder: doesn’t it make a difference if people are invited to TV by the dozen to talk about beauty stuff and divorce or if a highly creative person is invited to a TV newsroom (ORF-news: “Zeit im Bild”) or to a TV magazine studio (ZDF: “Mittagsmagazin"), where especially his expert knowledge is wanted? --IslandHopper (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Austria the discussed artist has been known since the 80ies for a variety of creative actions that were presented in the media. Just very recently (Jan & Feb 2011) his public presence was not to be ignored. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please name any source (English or German) to verify Raffetseder's "public presence"? Google News yields no results, except for a 4-year old interview about one of his books. --bender235 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check details, may take some time. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Raffetseder appeared in Austrian TV, ORF channel 2, on 31st January and 1st February 2011 being interviewed about variations of living cultural heritage. The interview was given in the documentary film “Unter die Haut: Körper . Formen . Kunst” ("Under the Skin: Bodies . Form . Art") by renowned Austrian filmmaker Gerald Teufel, who has several times co-produced with the interviewee before his time out of country. Raffetseder’s 10 years of field work abroad may be responsible for his minor internet presence, even though his latest 1-hour radio interview given on 5 Feb 2011, 14.00-15.00, is to be found online: Radio Orange94.0 (scroll and click loudspeaker symbol). Raffetseder’s latest print reportage “G’standene Mander”, also displaying living cultural heritage, was published in the Feb 2011-edition of the SERVUS-magazine (pages 88-96), a brand-new monthly released since December 2010 by Dietrich Mateschitz’s Red Bull Media House. Print copies available there, film copy at ORF. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all we have are some radio interviews, and a short article in a Red Bull corporate magazine. That is very little. I still don't see any notability. --bender235 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be accurate, within less than a month, we have one TV interview, one 60 minutes radio interview and one 9 pages colourful print reportage (2-4 pages is average here) in a high-circulation and top magazine, which is incidentially owned by Red Bull, but according to editorial, has been created to promote traditional cultures in the Alps-Adriatic Sea-area (Bavaria, Austria, South Tyrol, Italy). I think that’s pretty notable if we consider that these people have just completed vast field works to launch their campaign as a contribution to safeguard intangible cultural heritage. I am curious what's coming next. --81.10.146.221 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in regional Austrian radio and TV stations do not make this person notable for the English-speaking world. The actual criterias can be found here. And by the way, anonymous user from Linz, Austria, why don't you create an account? --bender235 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra input: 1) Radio ORANGE is located in Austria’s capital city of Vienna and heard worlwide through internet livestream. 2) ORF is not a regional but the Austrian national broadcasting network. 3) The discussed artist has acquired credit and relevance long before his present activities, namely in 1999 when he became known to whole Germany through countless TV and radio appearances there, promoting his „Total Eclipse“ project, that was first presented at the German Museum in München and later at the Technical Museum in Vienna. I suggest sceptics to contact these institutions and all the main German broadcasting stations (ARD, ZDF, BR, SAT 1…) where the guy appeared on screen between April and September 1999. Or maybe easier, get a copy of German high-circulation BILD-Zeitung from 2-11 August 1999, where his portrait and texts appear in 10 successive issues just before the eclipse. --VuestraMerced (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put things in perspective: Radio Orange 94.0 is a small Vienna community radio (yes, you can here it worldwide through the internet, just like John Doe's blog can be read around the globe). SERVUS is a corporate magazine by Red Bull with a circulation of barely 50,000 copies. And then there's the short appearance in this documentary on tattoo artists (BTW: is each of the artist in that documentary worth of a Wikipedia article now?). How in the world is that supposed to merit a Wikipedia entry? --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bender235. Sorry for the confusion. I am no sock puppet: you advised me to create an account and I did; that’s all. To put things further in perspective: 1) Radio Orange 94.0 is a local Vienna radio AND a well known meeting place of top Austrian people. Beyond Raffetseder let me only mention film directors Michael Glawogger (Workingman’s Death, Megacities) and Oscar nominated Götz Spielmann who showed up there for interviews. 2) With the SERVUS magazine, Red Bull has launched a top seller: 50.000 copies were planned for the first edition, now – 4 editions later – must be double or even more. Anyway, 50.000 copies sold in Austria correspond to about 400.000 sold in UK: isn‘t that something? 3) For most of the tattooed and pierced people who made statements about how and why in Gerald Teufel‘s ducumentary film, this was probably their very first time on air. For Raffetseder, after countless radio and TV interviews in so many different stations, this is routine. And you may have noticed: Raffetseder did not face the camera to show off tattoos or piercings, but as the founder of United Festivals (that will most hopefully not be deleted!) and as an expert to talk about special forms of body modification practised among South East Asian tribeswomen and during a Hindu festival, with significant pictures of the United Festivals world archive being shown. And by the way, Raffetseder's comments were far from blah-blah: both issues made their way into the English Wikipedia (please, see lemmata: „Kayan Lahwi“ and „Thaipusam“). --VuestraMerced (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, it's just highly suspicious when a number of new editors come along just to comment on an AfD, while the article's original author (Dr. mullah alias Raffetseder) disappeared.

And back to topic: it doesn't matter who else "talked" to that Vienna community radio. Just like not every person with a Twitter account is notable just because Barack Obama has an account, too.

Let's not get into details that much. Simple question: if this artist was so well-known, where's the international media coverage? I'm not talking about a Time Magazine cover story, but at least some mention in a notable German-language paper like FAZ? --bender235 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll find out some examples for you. Is Monday alright? How long does the discussion continue? --VuestraMerced (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided He's certainly got around, and appears to have taken some not bad pics, but the article is blatantly promotional and unencyclopaedic. Will look at refs when slightly less tired. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griggstown Quail Farm

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

spam filled article on small non notable poultry farm, no salvagable content even if it was notable. WuhWuzDat 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 February 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) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written and well referenced article. A whole article in the New York Times on the farm, it is as if the nominator was looking at a completely different article than the one I see. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only are the existing references in the article excellent, but a Google News search shows that there are many other references readily available that would show any AfD nominator willing to follow the simple procedures in WP:BEFORE Point #4 that this unusual niche business is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The needed references to establish notability were in the article at the time of nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch (The Venture Bros.)

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

This article has or no sources, references and no real world coverage to establish the notability, and it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list of Venture Brothers characters. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 February 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) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added. Artw (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly nothing more than plot summary, with no potential to really become anything more. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structured dialogic design

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

After removing the copyright violations, there is nothing left but unverified and vague content (and the copyvio stuff wasn't much better...). No indication of notability, and the context is completely unexplained. Seems like an attempt at advertising. Cmprince (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was entered by User:TRFlanagan on this discussion's talk page. I assume it was meant to be placed here. Cmprince (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of consulting firms that are using this methodology, but the posting is directed to the methodology rather than to the consulting firms. And the consulting firms do also provide other services.
What is different about this page is that it the methodology is an assembly of practices with a lot of history. It is not clear if other methodologies can be so constructed. Maybe. The metaphor is that this is like a recipe for a cake or for a healing remedy. There are no factual inaccuracies in what is presented.
It is interesting because if Wiikipedia were to prevent folks from knowing about this formula, it would deny access to it. There is nothing here that could not be reused by others. The name itself, is an attempt to protect the integrity of the recipe.
How does wikipedia treat a concept such as "wicked problem?" It is a published idea. The structured dialogic design is also a published idea.
It is interesting that peer reviewed journals might recoginze structured dialogic design as something that was unique and powerful, and yet wikipedia would say that it is a term without meaning other than a mask for sales for unstated prices and by parties in unknown markets.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 February 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) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever else can be said about this, the text here is unsalvageable: a methodology for social systems design based on a scientific foundation of defined axioms, a collection of methods, a philosophy of practice, and a series of laws of dialogue. SDD can be considered a method of participatory action research and a school of design practice (Dialogic Design). Can you explain what this is about, again, without just repeating that string? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please see some comments by some people in the Discussion of the article. I could agree that for the purpose of an encyclopedia, one might need to use simpler language and define the terms s/he is using. We might need the help of editors here. At the same time it is not easy to summarize a whole scientific field into a few sentences. SDD is a relatively new field of science which has however supported companies, communities, and societies achieve change. In simple words it is a :methodology", a "formula" which if applied correctly achieves something that NO other methodology can do: Twenty stakeholders with opposite opinions and interests converse to a consensus in several levels: 1. The develop a language to talk that allows them to communicate their thoughts 2. The agree on a shared understanding of what their current (problematic) situation looks like 3. The develop a MAP (not a yes/no thing but a "picture") of a future state of their system which is ideal; a consensus of how they envision the future of their organization, system, company etc... 4. The collectively discover what are the obstacles that prevent them from shifting the state of the system towards that ideal state 5. The agree on ACTIONS to take even though they continue to have different opinions and different priorities. BTW what we are talking about here is not trivial. I hope the editor can appreciate this. Now, for this methodology to work, a science has been developed which is scientifically grounded in concepts from cybernetics and systems sciences. The science (like many sciences) uses axioms, laws etc construct the theoretical background. This science has hundreds of SUCCESSFUL applications all over the globe. The European Commission has funded dozens of applications some of which involve all 27 countries. Although it is still a young science, it is a breakthrough. The page developed here was an initial attempt to add it in Wikipedia and encourage the people across the world 9who in most cases are NOT in Wikipedia) to improve, edit and strengthen. In my humble opinion Wikipedia needs this article more than this article needs Wikipedia. Futuristas (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Shopping Center

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

Gage Shopping Center is a small shopping center or strip mall. Unlikely to meet WP:N as there's nothing special about this place and no notable events have ever occurred here. There are millions of places just like this one. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Theoretically the age of this center may make it notable as a regional first, but the article makes no such claim, and its certainly no Country Club Plaza. Willing to revisit if a better claim for notability can be developed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:17, 28 February 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) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a million of these small shopping centers in my own town. Does anyone think I should make an article for each one? Just because they were built a while back and have anchor stores? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspensti (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect to Oliver Laws. Will leave the history in place for anyone who wants to take on the task of merging. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Oliver (designer)

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

This bio reads like one giant advert for a non-notable individual. Lugnuts (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spotted this a few days ago and was planning to work on it to at least make it look presentable, but don't think I'll bother now it's up for deletion. On the other hand, if it's kept I'll certainly put it on my to do list as the whole thing reads like a promotional piece just now. This guy seems to have worked on some notable projects and there's quite a lot of information if you Google him. Probably not as well known as his sibling, however (and nobody had heard of him until he was appointed David Cameronh's spin doctor). Perhaps what is needed is a redirect to Oliver Laws (his company) where we can merge some of the relevant information. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discourage people from editing the article because I've taken it to AfD. At the point I tagged it, it just read like a CV for someone who really isn't that important. Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might take a look at it, but don't really want to do masses of work on it if it's only going to be deleted at the end of the day. I'm not sure the case for keeping it is particularly strong, but suppose it could do with a copyedit at least. Perhaps if I find some refs and things it might strengthen the case. I've got a few days to do something anyway, so might tackle it towards the weekend. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can edit it to make it acceptable that will be fine. However, my impression is that once all the promotional material is removed there will be very little left, and I am doubtful if there is enough notability to keep it no matter how much it is rewritten. Even so, I am not yet giving a bold "delete", as I am willing to wait and see if someone can salvage it in the next few days. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After six days there is still no real evidence of notability, and it is still substantially promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Had planned to review this over the weekend, but events overtook me. Will take a look later this evening to see what (if anything) can be salvaged. If, for some reason, I don't manage to do it and the article is deleted I'll ask for it to be restored to my userspace, giving me a bit longer. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I could take a copy of it I suppose. Am I allowed to copy the text and paste it to my userspace? There doesn't seem to be any copyright issues with the article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok, I've removed the promotional stuff and rewritten it to sound more encyclopedic. I'll do some more work on it if we decide to save it from the chop. As regards his importance, I would say this is probably a borderline case. If others don't think it strong enough to keep then Merge/Redirect may still be the best solution. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:45, 28 February 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) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work TRG. Are you able to find a ref to back-up the Downing Street claim in the opening paragraph? If so, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been Googling this, but sadly I can find nothing to support the claim. It may be true, but there's no online reference for it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of clarity Mr Oliver's TV appearance as a leading UK designer can be seen in the Genuine Article Episode 502 'Hiring an Interior Designer" and in episode 305 "Howard Chairs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.46.2 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to post some details re Guy Oliver and his work not only on television but also behind the scenes production advice and guidance.

My Company Follow Productions based in New York featured Mr Oliver as one of the best known designers in England during the production of the Fine Living Network's "Genuine Article" series.

The series enjoyed five seasons on The Fine Living Network and is still seen throughout the world.

The series was focused on the finest artisans, products and services in the world such as Bentley, Riva, Aston Martin, The George V Hotel, Tanner Kroll, Lobb, ec.

Mr Oliver certainly met our requirements as a discreet but extremely important figure in the world of interior design

Mr Oliver discussed his re-design work for Claridge's Hotel new suites and The Connaught Hotel's public areas. We focused on his work in the specialist field of classic English and European decor. During our program he explained the careful selection of materials and craftsmen while re decorating some of the great private homes of England as well as his role in refurbishing rooms in both 10 Downing Street and the Kremlin. He introduced us to specialist artisans that re created regency fabrics and wallpapers using the same manufacturing techniques of the late 18th century.

He later introduced American audiences to US based artisans during his appearance on another Fine Living Network Series called The Best For Less. This show was also produced by Follow Productions

I hope this adds some detail to Mr Oliver's importance and notoriety within his industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.46.2 (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably add this as a reference. Just a couple of small questions though;

You mention two editions of the series. In which one does he discuss his work on the State Rooms at Downing Street?
When was this edition first aired?

Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOT cancellation test

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

Not in widespread use, based on a single reference. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to Mental_status_examination#Cognition. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator of the article. Can you provide evidence that anyone is actually using this test? JFW | T@lk 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidence that anyone is actually using this test: [49]. Sample: [50] from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MelanieN. Comment you want more links, Jfdwolff. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:33, 3 March 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) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The reference cited in the article says it is the same test as "Le test de Bourdon-Wiesma" which is probably a mis-spelling of "Le test de Bourdon-Wiersma". This, and "The Bourdon-Wiersma Test" give loads of references. http://www.crs.dk/function.html says "The Bourdon-Wiersma Test is a commonly used test of combined visual perception and vigilance". Thincat (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems no rationale for DOT being in capitals though it quite often appears on the web in this way, often with a tinge of Wikipedia about it. I can't judge the provenance. I won't try renaming or redirecting at this stage. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of substantial improvement by Thincat. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JLS US/Six Flags Tour

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

Unreliably sourced, unremarkable and un-notable tour per WP:NMUSIC#Concert tours — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:39, 22 February 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, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just not notable, fails WP:CONCERT. –anemone projectors– 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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