Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 24

< 23 March	25 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 ALL. postdlf (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kornelijus Timofejevas

(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 professional league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:GiantSnowman. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of the players in the nomination fulfills the notability requirements stated in WP:NFOOTBALL, and since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources they also fail WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of them appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and I can't find anything to suggest they meet WP:GNG.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of the players have appeared in a fully-professional league, so they fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither have any of them received any significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:10, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of LLC Online Based Companies

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

Simple case of an how-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. I know the creator has put a lot of work into this, but it very clearly is a "how-to" guide as RHaworth states. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Phearson (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOTMANUAL - SudoGhost (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original PRODer, tried to explain to the author to take it to something like wikiHow, but they were resistant to that idea. Unfortunately for the new user, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Jenks24 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikihow would be ideal for this sort of thing, and I urge the author to reconsider. Unfortunately, it's out of scope for Wikipedia. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B38 Group

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

£4.5 million annual turnover is a very small company in terms of notability. It reads more like an advert and there is clear COI evidence based on the single contributor's user ID. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - excuse my minor mistake in the nomination. The infobox states that the company has assets of £4.5 million not turnover of £4.5 million. That figure for assests is not cited, and the company has yet to file any annual accounts as it is just a few months old. In my opinion this reinforces my assertion that the company is not notable and should be deleted. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A google search for "B38 group" gets only 18 hits, 2 of which are the company website, and this article, and most seem to be false position. Non are reliable, independent sources. The article claims they have won an award, but the link in the article doesn't work, and if the award was a significant one, I assume it would have attracted some press coverage of some sort. Incidentally, one of the hits is to a whois search ([1]), with Richard Phillips as Registrant, further confirming the COI. Silverfish (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a property company, specialising in architectural property development, investment and strategic land. Strategic land? I will be sure to keep them in mind the next time I want to build a fortress, missile silo, or secret lair to take over the world. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term strategic land refers to a property developers term of buying land with no planning permission with the intend to dispose of it with planning permission. Not as Ihcoyc mentions - building fortresses, missile silos and secret lairs. A simple google search can verify this. Link to the articles will now be updated - thank you for bringing it to attention. £4.5 million does NOT refer to annual turnover and nor was that written. £4.5m refer to assets which it clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPhillipsb38 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Keep: I have now changed much of the content - please review and give me some feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPhillipsb38 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback? Sure. None of the references that you gave actually mentioned B38 as a company. I fail to see how a company that claims to have assets of £4.5 million, without that figure being referenced, and having been formed for less than a year with no accounts filed at companies house, can be considered as notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - microscopic firm with no hint of public interest or attention; totally fails all our standards of corporate notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Flying Tigers

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

Is there even such thing as a flying tiger? I doubt it. This may be a hoax. And even if it isn't, Flying Tigers returning to an area hardly describs notability

Speedy keep Nomination is blatant vandalism. Strikerforce (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. I don't understand. Why is this vandalism. If anything the article is? Please help me. Sanks Uconnjoseph (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution history of this account suggests a vandalism-only account and has been reported as such to AIV. Strikerforce (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not speedy. The vandal, oddly enough, while not articulating it properly, has an arguable notability point, but I think it's sufficiently notable to keep. Nevertheless, I don't think it's appropriate to do a speedy closure. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Argument that elements of a fictional work aren't real, even if advanced in good faith, isn't a rational rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the nominator did not bother to read the article, otherwise s/he would know that the "Flying Tigers" is a name of a fighter plane unit. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:42, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association

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

pure unadulterated SPAM WuhWuzDat 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a company trying to get their name out. it's not spam, its information about the company. --tmiller2011 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I created the article as a stub, with sources. ahager1773 and ahagersbca (i'm guessing both are associated with the organization) added a lot of material that is promotional in nature. I would suggest just removing that material and going back to the sourced stub, instead of deleting the entire article. I've removed the material and what's left should work as an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear claim of notability, google news archive search shows lots of mentions to certainly verify, couldn't immediately find a source which gives it extensive coverage to fully assert notability, but giving benefit of doubt that it's out there somewhere. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG.[2][3] Article tone for a notable company is an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:03, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Leckner

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

Per original prod "No WP:RS references that establish the subject as being notable; only references are a database listing and the site of the subject's own company". I'd also like to add that there is a publication reference, but we shouldn't base the whole article on one source. That source is also very questionable, I can't find if it's this magazine or this one. It might be [www.northjersey.com/ this one], a local magazine for New Jersey. Bluefist ^talk 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a typical vanity piece about a self-inflated movie mogul with no actual rep in the industry. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per G11, pure promo, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete was declined, as any promotion can easily fixed by editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still a vanity bio about a non-notable individual. – ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is just one of many that were created in order to promote Starline Films, its staff (such as Kevin Leckner, Jonathan Doscher and Fran Ganguzza), and films (4CHOSEN: The Documentary). All were created by accounts such as User:Michelle.starlinefilms (who switched to User:Michelitac when the other name was blocked) and User:LauraatStarline. It's one big tangled promo-fest. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promotional and non-notable. I share the feelings about the 'promo-fest'. Peridon (talk) 14:17, 26 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. Nomination withdrawn Big Dom 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cobra characters

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

Nomination withdrawn based on "His birthplace is Montego Bay, Jamaica. He is noted for having little sense of personal hygiene and the sunglasses he wears to cover his blood-shot eyes." That's simply too cool to delete. Never mess with a hygenically challenged Jamaican baddie...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional unencyclopedic cruft with no relevance to the real world and is out of context in general reading. I believe such an article will never be encyclopedic and knowing the wide acceptance of fictional cruft on here probably would have survived a speedy deletion tagging..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please check out the discussion on the WikiProject G.I. Joe talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe#Merge has begun. The article was created, in order to consolidate many of the Cobra character articles that are not notable enough to stand on their own. It is hardly fair to nominate this article for deletion, especially when it is marked as {{underconstruction}}, and was deemed necessary by consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be 200kb long, and it would still be fictional cruft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better a list article than any other kind of article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in construction and I can tell it's uncomplete. I am waiting to see how it's turning out for now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fortdj33. 1) it's under construction pursuant to a WikiProject discussion, and 2) character lists of this sort are part of standard coverage for media franchises, particularly since they help get rid of character articles that don't merit being stand-alone (think of it as a compromise position, if you will). "Fictional cruft" is not helpful and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is an excuse to collect any old cruft and render it "encyclopedic".I ask the question. What credible encyclopedia would list characters completely in universe with no relevance to the real world? Perhaps you can explain to me how this sort of material is encyclopedia worthy? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the other guys said. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This list cannot be fulfilled in one day. It will be built up gradually, much like the rest of wikipedia..." (~ Dr. Blofeld) Sound familiar? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for nominating this has nothing to do with lack of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Please do feel free to expand on your last statement. So far, all you've provided us with boils down to WP:ITSCRUFT -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG there's really a WikiProject G.I. Joe? I wonder how many fan boys turn out here to keep their cruft. So far three members... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought someone who's been around as long as you would know better to be civil, rather than a biter. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why it can't be summarized in Cobra Command article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why List of hotels can't be summarized in Hotel article?♦ -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are hundreds if not several thousand notable hotels which are often prominent real world landmarks, skyscrapers etc. There are not hundreds of Cobra Command characters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because there's a ridiculous number of redlinked hotels in there. And a random sample of live links is more likely than not going to take you to a stub. If a mention in a Frommers or a Lonely Planet guidebook is enough to establish notability, then so is an entry in Ultimate Guide to GI Joe (which interestingly, our characters are). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FYI - one of your "hotels" actually links to an article for a warship. If you ask nicely, I'll tell you which one it is. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF has hotels got to do with this? Are you a sockpuppet of somebody else? Does The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe contain actual out-of-universe information on the characters?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hotels has to do with this because it's a project that you're closely associated with that was nominated AfD and which you fought just as hard to save from deletion, so just pointing out the hypocrisy. 2. I was wondering how long it would take for a sockpuppet accusation to come flying out. Well if you'd bothered to check my userpage, and contribution history you'd know that I am anything but. On the other hand, given that you seem to be losing this particular AfD discussion, I'm really not surprised that you're resorting to this sort of tactic. 3. and yes, the Ultimate Guide contains both in IU and OOU information, but that's not the point. The fact that someone actually bothered to compile it is, as far as I'm concerned, proof of notability in the same vein as you use Frommers and Lonely Planet to back up some of your hotel entries -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no its just rather creepy how you seem to have stalked AFD's I've been involved in without actually commenting or voting "keep" or "delete". So, given the fact you haven't shut about them my first thought was that you were involved in them under a different user name.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." Sun Tzu, The Art of War -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the sub-sections "List of hotels" and "Nomination of List of hotels for deletion" is right near the bottom of your talk page - it's really not very hard to find -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even you claim "none of the things I'm inclined to write about are ever likely to be considered topics of substance by the Literati." Why do you think that? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because I could care less about what the likes of you think about the work that I do. I'm well aware of how the Wikipedia hierarchy works - you're either part of the in-crowd or you're not. I'm just here to write about things that I care about, and I'm quite happy to leave everyone else alone. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest concern is that the majority of articles about fictional characters we have on wikipedia are almost entirely in-universe and magnets for original research. Its a make believe world which is why if they do not contain decent sources and out of universe info its pure fantasy and therefore not meeting the expectations of a formal encylopedia. unless its actually put in context with background info to the casual wikipedia reader in general in comes across as fan cruft. Yes it is possible that articles about fictional characters/episodes can be cleverly written and meet requirements but sadly the majority of articles are fictional cruft and really are way off being encyclopedic in a formal sense. And when we have thousands upon thousands of them like this its a real problem. If we must have articles about every character then the way to go would be a merged list and cleaned up in a way that it does contain out of universe information about the characters which meets requirements. I do hope this is what was intended here because the topic does not exactly strike me as an important one. Hotels are not really my special interest, I'm much more interested in old manors and castles and monasteries. You could argue that none of them are important but at least they exist in the real world... Personally I much prefer to write about hotels which have major architectural/historical significance e.g La Salle Hotel. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be a much better place if editors tried to help other editors with problem articles (such as the in-universe style you cite above), rather than arbitrarily dropping an AfD. Unfortunately, we tend to see far more of the latter than we do the former. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Most of the people who nominate articles I've created end up feeling like they wasted their time doing so and that it would have been better to discuss the problem first. The problem though is that different people often have dramatically different views about what an encyclopedia should be permitted to have and certain subjects seem utterly unencyclopedic to many. Personally I prefer the traditional encyclopedia type subjects than things like web comics and lists of power rangers or teletubbies but no doubts others will claim a list of teletubbies to be highly encyclopedic. But its not a matter of what I like. I'll accept articles on fiction if they contain decent sources and minimal original research. My concern is articles like List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Can you honestly say that the sourcing is credible and contains a wide range of third-party publications? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no worse, and probably better in some ways, than say List of Star Wars characters. The difference is that if you "wonder how many fan boys turn out here to keep their cruft", well the Star Wars fan boys would probably rip you multiple new ones rushing to protect their cruft. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that list is even worse....♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should nominate it for an AfD. I'd loooove to see the responses ;) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no doubts several hundred grown men fan boys who still have a poster of Princess Leia on their bedroom walls would turn up to claim its importance within two minutes, One wonders though why none of them are actually improving it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To each their own. Their fandom of Princess Leia is no less valid than your fandom of E. S. Blofeld. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation and WikiProject Toys, all of which these G.I. Joe and Cobra articles fall under. Just because someone doesn't have an interest in "fictional cruft", does not mean that it isn't encyclopedic... Fortdj33 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question about Cobra Command - There are over a dozen Cobra character articles that are notable enough to stand on their own, and just as many that need to be merged into a list. Merging them into Cobra Command would make that article too large to be effective, and it would eventually result in the information being split off anyway, into an article such as List of Cobra characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I don't have an interest in fictional cruft? I have a big interest in enjoyable film series and cult things. Yes i enjoyed GI Joe, The A Team, The Avengers and Stargate etc. But I don't think wikipedia is the place for excruciating detail about every character. There are fan sites dedicated to things like that. The question still stands, how is this article encyclopedic? Do you plan on discussing the creation of the characters with credible book sources or just intent on purely in universe information which is only understandable to a fan and WP:OR?. You created the article as a GI Joe fan right? What then motivated you if it wasn't for the fact that you WP:ILIKEIT it. If you weren't a fan you wouldn't insist that wikipedia has it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a fan of G.I. Joe, which is why I am a member of WikiProject G.I. Joe, to help with the creation of G.I. Joe-related articles, and improve the coverage of G.I. Joe on Wikipedia. The point to be made here, is that you nominated this article for deletion less than 10 minutes after it was created, without bothering to first inquire why it is necessary, and despite the fact that it was marked {{underconstruction}}. I am not the only fan who feels that the article deserves a chance to be completed with proper references, before someone deems it un-encyclopedic. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say you plan on merging some separate articles which already exist into this list? Well that is something, having an article about every character even minor ones is even worse. OK show to me within the next few days that you will add credible sources and include out of universe info on character development and how they were created and I'll withdraw the nomination. I'm not convinced there are multiple sources in reliable publications on these characters outside of fan books. Prove me wrong and I'll withdraw the nom for thinking it would be purely in universe original research. No I didn't give the article a chance to develop because it seemed an unencyclopedic topic. 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld

I know that it's difficult not to take this personally, since you are the person that nominated the article for deletion. But I fail to see why we should continue to justify this article to you, when you have already shown your lack of interest in the subject. Furthermore, I am reluctant to merge information from several articles into this one, if there's a possibility that this article will be deleted. I understand that's just part of the nature of Wikipedia, but you have already made your point clear, and I would appreciate you allowing the editors of this project to continue with their work, instead of being nonconstructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists for major fictional franchises are routinely kept, and the fact that this is a merge target for multiple non-notable characters, as supported by a Wikiproject, only makes this that much more compelling. GI Joe has spanned multiple decades and multiple media forms. Lists may (and in such cases, should) include many individually non-notable elements, while themselves meeting inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree a merger of this non notable articles would be better but still needs reliable sources and out of universe info. The thing is List of Cobra characters says nothing about the series. List of G.I. Joe characters all summarised in one article would seem appropriate.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like many have noted before, the article is still {underconstruction}. Did you miss that part, and now you're just fighting a rearguard action to save face? A single consolidated list of GI Joe characters containing the level of OOU detail that you demand would be unmanageable, and hence the rationale for breaking it down and organising it into smaller articles. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNG still applies and that's the core of this. Has any reliable source talked about these in an out-of-universe way? has anyone ever discussed their impact, their importance culturally, anything? as it stands this belongs on a GI Joe wikia not in an encyclopedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons. 1) Per fortdj33, this article was created pursuant to a merge discussion and this AfD threatens to derail the nice consensus that we had going over there. Of course, the nominator could not have known this. 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether its the 500 Transformers character articles in Category:Autobots and Category:Decepticons or the 1000 lists of characters in the subcats of Category:Lists of fictional characters, there seems to be a community consensus that articles consisting only of fictional information are pretty OK. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of an ongoing merge, this is not helpful. It is like the people who tried to delete List of Pokémon (1-20) before they were done merging all the species into it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:50, 29 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 for CSD: A10 duplicate topic of Freemasonry. --Selket ^Talk 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

نوناسونية

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

The author removed the NOT ENGLISH tag and I have a theory why. The main link directs you to visit a page indicating Jews have ruined the world. I do not read Arabic, and am unable to verify it. Golgofrinchian (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google translate came back with this: Freemasonry or "freemasons". Is a global fraternal organization share their beliefs, ideas, and one with respect to metaphysics, ethics and the interpretation of the universe and life and faith in a divine Creator. Characterized this organization secrecy, ambiguity, especially in the rituals at the beginning of its foundation, making it the focus of many of the news and rumors that the organization with a capacity of proliferation and enable access to most governments of the world are strong of ownership of the leadership of the world, so Some accuse Freemasonry as "veterans of religious thought" and "Publishers of secular thought.

The link has some inflammatory remarks on it - Definition: Freemasonry language meaning freemasons, which is the terminology the Jewish underground subversive, terrorist ambiguous, the Court of regulation designed to ensure that Jews control the world and calls for atheism, pornography, corruption, and cover up under the slogans of deceit (freedom - Fraternity - Equality - humanity). Most members of the eminent personalities in the world, conservation of Yotgahm era secrets, and live the so-called forums for gathering and planning and commissioning tasks in preparation of the conservation of global democracy - as claimed - and take the self and the basis for utilitarian purposes in the composition of government that is not a universal religious and much more.Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably speedily as no improvement on the existing Freemasonry. Peridon (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE AS SPAM - Why are we talking about this? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 24 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.

This is a delicate close where the nature of "satisfactory evidence" is in question. Important considerations:

Evidence - Notability is based on the world taking significant notice (guideline: WP:N) and showing enduring notability (policy: WP:NOT), as evidenced by reliable sources. The evidence does not need to be in academic output, but it needs to exist and there needs to be a consensus that it's demonstrated (WP:NRVE). There also needs to be consensus that based on cited evidence, the subject is sufficiently significant/notable (ie passes "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information").

Nature of claims - Claims of subject's notability are based on the subject 1/ having played a significant role in multiple teams, groups, projects or bodies, often as a technical expert, and 2/ having received a range of awards or recognitions for his work. Some of these are evidenced, however several are either not well evidenced, or are challenged by other participants as not good evidence of notability (example arguments: indiscriminate or minor awards, minor grants, or easily obtained memberships).

Arguments that cannot carry weight - "it's obvious" (it isn't or we wouldn't be here); "last AFD proved notability" (that's what we are here to decide, so we can't assume it); "has significant students" (teachers don't inherit notability from having good students); "secret role explains lack of coverage" (we can't decide notability from hearsay or negative evidence, if he is significant then other secondary sources will have noticed him too); "Biodefense is a unique and new field making people in it notable" (raised at previous AFD, but notability is not inherited, if sources don't exist yet then we wait until they do)

SPA activity - CheckUser confirms that 3 of the 4 "keep" and "neutral" views (14integrity, Hbethe, BrassRatOne) are closely connected SPA's (people visiting just for this discussion) or perhaps the same person. This doesn't invalidate their views but does affect the weight they are given. Also noted that the article writing involved 21 (!) SPA accounts. (The two "delete" SPA's were checked as well).

Of possibly valid arguments, the delete view is the stronger argued. Users like Twoself list specific policies and guidelines that apparently fail to be met. Others such as the nominator and Boltzmann point to lack of evidence of impact, lack of evidence of scientific output, lack of concrete examples of his works, etc. Users like David Eppstein analyze the awards and recognitions cited and find them lacking, in what seems to be a very clean reading of our norms and policies.

The keep and neutral views such as 14integrity draw recognition from his keynote speaking at a major conference (although arguments that notable others gave keynote speeches or that the conference is notable don't add any weight), from the award of a medal which is "the highest award" available, from a minor grant ($50k) from a major body that may be significant, and the subject being a participant in a documentary dealing with his technical field. Previous AFD analysis includes drawing notability from the positions held, despite lack of third party sources attesting to their significance to the wider world.

These are more subjective and therefore we consider consensus - does consensus of AFD participants feel these points show notability? They don't. 14integrity, Hbethe and BrassRatOne all appear to be connected or perhaps the same person (per CheckUser) and are all SPA's visiting Wikipedia for this one specific discussion, so the weight for consensus purposes isn't there, and there is no consensus on most of these points by !vote count either. The "highest award" is not clearly agreed with, the "grant" is small and described by another participant as a routine kind of "seed" grant (presumably grants are given to non-notable people?), the documentary was not "about" him so much as his area of work intersecting Iraq (which was the focus of the documentary and presumably he was asked to comment on it), and reliance on "secret" work is correctly discounted. Other matters (a single paper, keynote speaker, grant selection process) etc might be worth noting in an article but drawing a conclusion that he is notable for a collection of medium achievements is always a difficult one for a BLP subject.

I also considered Bearian's "keep per previous AFD" and looked that up - it seems Bearian may mean "notable due to positions held [DGG/John Z]" but if so he has not given further comments there either.

The delete views being stronger and more clearly arguing from policy, the keep evidence being disputed as to significance and not achieving consensus anyway (as well as most "keeps" being just one or a few very closely connected visitors), and the fact that BLPs in borderline/no consensus cases would be biased slightly to deletion anyway, means this discussion is closed as delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick I. Moxley

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

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

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

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an 149.142.201.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who prodded the page though it is ineligible for prod due to past AfD. Nomination rationale was "Notability. This person in not a complex systems scientist, otherwise the page should show some concrete example of the impact of his work."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said in the last AfD. I cleaned up the lead. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for reasons expounded by others in last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I agree with the more than obvious statement that this person is not notable as a complex systems scientist, nobody knows of him, judged by any reasonable way. Being part of NYAS, is a membership *any* professor get in the mail together with credit card offers!...Scientific impact (more than say thousand citations in the ISI database) is an objective meaure of notability in the field claimed to be contributing. The argument that he could be working in a secret (non notable) project or in a "hidden" organization, used in the previous discussion is oxymoronic!, non notable persons working in the CIA, for instance, should starts its "Wikipedia for non notable!". Give me a break, being notable is something really easy to show, and this case is not. The entry says that this person is a scientist in a scientific field, I can not find in the usual databases, (google scholar, ISI, scorpus) any significant impact or notability to support the claim. Whoever say otherwise must provide clear proofs of notability, not for hypothetical cases, but for this one entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoself (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Twoself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Minor awards and low citation count. As for the keynote at Worldcomp, I'd be a lot more impressed if it were an ACM or IEEE sponsored conference, but as it is I have nothing to judge its significance by. And how does one become an "elected member" of IEEE? He's certainly not a Fellow of IEEE. I !voted for deletion on the previous AfD and I still don't see much evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
neutral. Having monitored this discussion for the past couple of days, I can not help but wonder if someone has an axe to grind. In all honesty, the comments made supporting deletion seem rather arrogant. For instance, although not an ACM or IEEE conference, WORLDCOMP is a top-ranked conference in which many noted scholars participate in on an annual basis. In addition to Professor Moxley, many other notables have served as keynote speakers to include Lofti Zadeh, Ian Foster, David Parnas, Eric Drexler and several others from such esteemed universities as UCLA, UC Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, as well as from sponsoring organizations such as the NSF, NASA, DoD, etc. It is a top-ranked conference as noted by Microsoft Academic Search based on the number of citations listed. With regard to the comments made by David Epstein pertaining to this conference, as well as Dr. Moxley’s low level awards, he should investigate further. Dr. Moxley is listed as an elected Senior Member of the IEEE, a Full member of the Sigma Xi – the Scientific Research Society, and has been elected to other well known scientific bodies. With regard to awards, per the Department of Defense, the OSD Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service Award is the highest honor the Office of the Secretary can bestow upon an individual, and thus is not without substantial merit and is recognized at the highest level. Per the source references on the webpage that he is being scrutinized, Professor Moxley was also selected to participate and then awarded a grant from the National Academies (not a low-level scientific body by anyone’s estimation) based on his work involving complex systems, which seems to be Epstein’s bone of contention. Based on a web search, he authored a paper dealing with complex systems for an international conference sponsored by the IEEE and was also a co-author on a Best Paper that was recognized by the Society for Risk Analysis most recently. He also appeared in a documentary that was recently broadcast on the Science and Discovery channels dealing with complex networks. In summary, maybe some others should be scrutinized more thoroughly based on their level of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14integrity (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — 14integrity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This person is not notable under any standard by his scientific production. As for the impact of his research papers, is low in comparison to most assistant professors which are reasonably active in their fields. No scientific theory, hypothesis, etc, can be directly linked to his name. Neither is he notable by his scientific offspring (i.e. students) or as a teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis boltzmann (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Luis boltzmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Notability has already been established as indicated in previous AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Hbethe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep met with him while in Boston - undergrad program under his initial tutelage has produced Rhodes, Marshall and NSF scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrassRatOne (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrassRatOne (talk • contribs) — BrassRatOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ As suggested above, the point is notability as a a scientist:
1-The discussion in favor of notability based on a talk in 2008 should be dropped, if were to be important, the editor should find another talk in the period 2008-2011, since it is common for scientists of impact to be invited regularly. I could not find any.
2-Concerning the awards, I disagree with the weight given to the medal of Secretary of Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Award as "the highest honor". Indeed that medal as the *only* medal of the Office of the Secretary, and it can be given several times to the same individual during his/her life.
3-Concerning the grant received from the National Academies, it is a small "seed" grant which usually is distributed by a speedy steering committee (not peer reviewed) to promote new areas of research, but not in recognition of particular merits of the candidate.
The description and details of the process can be found in http://www.keckfutures.org/conferences/complex-systems.grants.html
"YING-CHENG LAI, Arizona State University, Tempe ; FREDERICK I. MOXLEY, Network Science Center, United States Military Academy; JUAN M. OCAMPO, Trajectory Asset Management, New York City; MICHAEL J. NORTH, University of Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory
Financial Liquidity and Network Theory - $50,000
Financial markets are highly complex networks of institutions and transactions through which liquidity, i.e., the flow of credit, enhances economic activity. These researchers will models these networks to provide understanding, prediction, and some degree of control of this important economic factor."
The bottom line here is that this type of small grants are not given in recognition of trajectory and then should not be taken as a proof of notability.
4-The comment concerning " authored a paper dealing with complex systems for an international conference sponsored by the IEEE and was also a co-author on a Best Paper that was recognized by the Society for Risk Analysis most recently" is not adding any substantial merits for notability, to be notable it will be necessary that hundreds of papers cite any of these two papers, which is not the case.
5- Concerning the documentary, I agree that it is important but also it can be argued that the material is more about Sadam than about Prof. Moxley work.
As I said above, the editor should show proofs of impact beyond what it is already in the entry, which is insufficient to prevent deletion.Twoself (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— Twoself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. checked into this and believe that the previous assessment trivializes the recognition that has been bestowed on Professor Moxley and is erroneous to boot. The exceptional civilian service medal is the Office of the Secretary of Defense's highest award as indicated by the source website. To indicate that it may given out more than once is immaterial, as several significant honors may be bestowed on someone more than once. Based on the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative website, to participate alone is a competitive and selective process in which a limited amount of scientists - approximately one hundred annually - are allowed to partake. Furthermore, grants are awarded based on merit, and not just given out according to their website. Also, to negate a peer reviewed best paper published by a recognized professional society as recently as 2010 is a bit harsh. Watched the documentary, and it indicates the establishment of network science as an undergraduate field at the U.S. Military Academy which is by no means a meager accomplishment. For a government scientist who is not a professional academician and thus would not publish as often, his accomplishments are not only current, but highly commendable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Hbethe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: I struck two repeat !votes by Twoself (talk · contribs) and Hbethe (talk · contribs). Limit 1 !vote per customer please. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking some words from his most-cited article (5!) one can easily see that there are articles on the same subject that get cited 132, 80, 48, 37, ... times. Claims that his field is secretive are ludicrous. Abductive (reasoning) 14:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to provide some perspective to the arguments given by the colleague above.
1) The recognition given by the medal was not trivialized by the comment, the fact that can be given many times indicates that is not the *TOP* recognition. SInce we are trying to figure out how notable is that person, the comment is appropriate.
2) Concerning the grant the editor fail to offer proofs that "to participate alone is a competitive and selective process". It is known that, the grants NIH and NSF as well as the contracts of the Department of Defense are competitive in the sense that there is a well established annual competition for grants in which each one interested can apply. They are selective because only a few percent of the applications are funded. So having a grant from any of these agencies means a clear recognition. In this case, as I said before, a steering committee was appointed (Dr. Stanley was the chair according to the web site) who discretionally invited whoever he found suitable. In this case more than 90 % of the people that was invited to the conference (according to the web site) got the grant, as happen usually when small grants (in this case 50k) are distributed. In conclusion, the process was not competitive nor selective.
3)To publish one (1) paper is not proof of anything, even a Post Doct fellow will not get a job based on publishing a paper, what count is the number of citations (larger than hundreds) as argued by the ed. Abdcutive. Thus, the comment that "negate a peer reviewed best paper published by a recognized professional society as recently as 2010 is a bit harsh" is invalid.
FInally, again, the issue here is: how notable is this person? In my opinion the best proof is that this person is as notable as in the occasion of the last AfD. Any notable living person will have a lot to show in such period of time, instead in this case the discussion is whether publishing one paper is enough. Twoself (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment - You really need to get your facts straight. For instance the medal that was awarded to Dr. Moxley is the highest award bestowed to civilians by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, period. When viewing a recipient’s listing of the award at the following website, http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/library/biographies/bio_print.asp?bioID=10641&page=1 one can see that it is listed by order of significance (i.e., top to bottom). Another example is provided at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46538 where the same award was presented to Charlie Daniels for his public service to the Department of Defense. It is not an award that is handed out frivolously and yes, it may be presented more than once (e.g., the Medal of Honor has been awarded to the same recipient more than once; Nobel Prize, more than once, etc). So, to receive an honor more than once does not indicate a lack of prestige.
It is well known that the government awards grants on a competitive basis. This was never the point of discussion or issue at hand. The issue at hand focused on the relevance and notability of Dr. Moxley’s designation as a NAKFI selectee, grant recipient, and alumni.
From their website the following is provided: ‘NAKFI’s objectives include enhancing the climate for conducting interdisciplinary research, and breaking down related institutional and systemic barriers. We work toward these objectives by harnessing the intellectual horsepower of approximately 150 of the brightest minds from diverse backgrounds who apply to attend our annual “think-tank” style conference to contemplate the real world challenges of our day; and by awarding seed grants – on a competitive basis – to conference participants to enable further pursuit of bold, new ideas and inspirations generated at the conference.’
Didn’t see the 90 percent award ratio you mentioned. Based on the total number of attendees alone, the awardees amounted to less than 50 percent (to include Nobel laureates) of the participants who attended. So again, your comment is not based on fact.
In addition, as news of Alumni’s progress in the form of written research reports is posted for press release by the National Academies on an ongoing basis, one may deduce that these efforts are still works in progress.
As indicated on the webpage in question, Dr. Moxley is presently a government scientist and senior advisor and is not an academic by profession. In this capacity, he would not have the time, nor would he be expected to write papers on a regular basis. It can also be surmised from the webpage that the position he held at the U.S. Military Academy was not a permanent one. Putting Dr Moxley in a box alongside those in academia who are expected to produce papers on a regular basis actually does him a disservice. In all reality, he is a practitioner who holds two doctorates in two totally different and distinct fields, has served in academia, made notable contributions, and returned to his position as an active professional. His accomplishments to date have benefited both realms of government and academia, and his efforts are ongoing.
Nothing more need be said except that you should consider reading the comments as presented before providing a perspective that may be interpreted as one-sided. Regardless of the position taken, twisting the facts to suit one’s own objectives does not bode well for open discussion or debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 1 April 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be some support for a merge of this particular transistor article, so I encourage further discussion on that. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N3904

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

Contested prod. No assertion of notability in the general sense - lots of listings in catalogs, parts lists, hobby electronics instructions, etc. but no 3rd party independent coverage showing notability in the non-electronics world. Wikipedia is not a renewal parts catalog, a transistor/tube substitution guide, or an indiscriminate collection of information. There's a whole bunch of parts catalog entries of similar low utility to the encyclopedia. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a notable transistor in the electronics world but does on need its own article. A mention in the transistor article is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with others to a List of common discrete transistors, for all the very common discrete transistor components frequently found in hobbyist and educational material. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a paragraph on them in the transistor article is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why transistor, instead of BJT ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Electronic components are always difficult and the thoughts in my mind are "How much relevant actual prose about this device specifically is there or indeed, can there be?" There's plenty of details that could be included here that isn't but little that you couldn't (or probably wouldn't be better off) presenting in tabular form. If the device had unique characteristics or applications then that would make it noteworthy, but the 2N3904's principal claim to fame is that is it is a bog-standard general purpose transistor with nothing exceptional about it. As such apart from device data it is covered by transistor - no specific mention there is necessary. The device data alone is no reason for an article - the data sheets are a much better reference - so I'm struggling to see any real role for this article. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for deletion withdrawn in light of Spinningspark's comment. A co-ordinated unified approach is needed here rather than piecemeal action. Admin action is urgently needed to close down these discussions in favour of a broader-reaching meta-discussion. Currently it seems the community is attempting to concentrate discussion on various different pages. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To List of commonly used transistors. Many books call it a "popular transistor" or "commonly used transistor," and it is one of a handful which are well known to electronics hobbyists and circuit designers for the past couple of decades. Not just one more random transistor number. Questionable significance for a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 2N3904 appears in over 4000 books, including over 500 near the word "popular"; including 5 books with the phrase ""popular 2N3904". Do some work instead of calling for its deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list a book that gives some non-trivial, non-parts list information about the 2N3904. How many are/were made each year? What company first invented it? When was its JEDEC registry date? How is it better than competitive devices introduced at the time? Was it always a JEDEC registered part or did it have a proprietary ancestor? Why is it so popular? We demand more information on a garage band to have it's own encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No actual sound reason for deletion, as notability is clear for the entire category of AfDs made (kindly assume this opinion is true of the other AfDs of notable components). It is not a "parts catalog entry" in any case, and I regard that as an insufficient reason for deletion as it is not part of WP:NOT. Collect (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a pretty important transistor and there might be something about it in e.g. Horowitz and Hill, "The Modern Art of Electronics". But merging to some bigger article about common transistors seems like a good approach. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to fail the GNG. While G-Books brings back lots of hits i can't find anything that goes in depth about this --Guerillero | My Talk 03:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If those who know about this sort of thing decide to merge similar ones together so be it. Otherwise, let it be. Every new transistor played some significant part in history, new things built, or things made cheaper or more powerful by constant improvements. Dream Focus 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every new transistor played some significant part in history. No, they didn't. Many were insignificant. These articles were about a few of them that were significant and notable. Fluffy prose of "all must have prizes" is both inaccurate and also supports Wtshymanski's position that transistors are just equal items from a parts list, thus none of them merit individual articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Notable. Electronics hobby extends to areas beyond pure electronics. I found it mentioned in hobbyist articles about guitars, ham radio and tattoos. I added some cites to confirm info, but there are many more available. But I would have no objection to a merger into a table (or multiple tables for different specs.).—RJH (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khac zelosus

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

This may be a hoax. I search Google scholar and got zero results. All the results on a Google search were unrelated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - unsourced, no confirmation found. Also, looks like a "joke" attack page: I have removed per WP:BLP a name cited as a "known case". JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thief (chess)

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

Article is not based on reliable sources (WP:V) and by extension does not assert notability (WP:N). I could not locate any reliable sources through Google Web or Books. Has been tagged with notability concerns for over a year. Previous AfD was withdrawn on the basis of a review at Chessville. This is a self-published source, so I tried to ascertain if the author, J. Varsoke was an "established expert in his field" (WP:SPS) but could not find any evidence of this. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per marasmusine Pass A Method talk 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article mainly just says this software exists. It doesn't say why it is important. The online review is about the same. This just seems to be one of many programs out there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:26, 24 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) 17:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability.--Sloane (talk) 02:52, 25 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 and REDIRECT. I'll enact the redirect; just consult the edit history for whatever you want to merge. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Recession

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

Article appears to be a content fork. We aleady have articles on the Late-2000s recession, 2007–10 recession in the United States, and the Late-2000s financial crisis. There is no need for yet another article about the Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication of Late-2000s recession series. There is a problem with the title of that series, of course, in that the recession is still continuing, but only time will tell whether Great Recession really becomes the established term internationally. Creating a new fork on the topic just against the possibility that it does is not helpful to users. A redirect will do for now. AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a superior article on this topic, 2007–10 recession in the United States.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Obvious content fork of existing articles. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect — Ditto.AerobicFox (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - There's a clear repetition of content with the aforementioned entries. Moreover, Late-2000s financial crisis focuses on the very specific aspects of the economy that went wrong, whereas "Great recession" sounds way too dramatic, in my opinion.--Forich (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on redirect "Great recession" has been used extensively in relation to other recessions (e.g. [4]) so a dab page might be more appropriate than a redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page; content should be only related to how term became applied to current economic condition. Even if used before for other recessions, term does habve a meaning and history. No need to repeat other contents, however. This was my plan in starting page long ago. It has already been deleted once; we shoud re-write page. Keep intro and first two sections. If others agree, will do so. Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content should be only related to how term became applied to current economic condition. I don't think that is possible without a change of title. Wikipedia is not just a record of current events and usage. Pontificalibus has pointed out that the term has been used in the past, and it may be used again. It might be different if usage for this one period eclipses all others so that it can be argued that this is the only notable use, but we are a long way from that now - some years would have to elapse first. There is also confusion over whether the article is intending to address only the US economy or the international one - I don't think that international usage for current events is well enough established now but again, it is clear that it has been used for the period after the 1970s oil crisis internationally so cannot be claimed as an exclusively US term. AJHingston (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the idiom is common and readers coming to Wikipedia will want and need an explanation, but an etymology could easily fit in a short section of the main article, it doesn't need a separate article at this point. If it was to be kept, it should be renamed Great Recession (idiom), so as not to create a fork of existing articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Where would it redirect to? The late-2000s recession? The term has entered the lexicon to describe more than that. It's become an umbrella term to describe the economic decline of America.--Mmann1988 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title — I have no opinion on keeping or deleting, but it's a common enough title that it shouldn't be a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; should have been speedied, as it makes no assertion of notability for this subject, only for his relatives. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahibzada Abdul Aziz

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

Hmmm, can't tell you about him because the article is about his family members. His brother is famous for being executed in Afghanistan for his religious beliefs. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no wp;RS Pass A Method talk 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for people. No assertion of importance or significance, no reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautisol

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

Appealed speedy. I see no real indication that the company was notable--the references are essential PR and product mentions. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any news sources other than press releases, or any other reliable sources covering the product in any depth. ^Bongo_matic 09:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim made for notability, no external news coverage. LK (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to find some coverage in Us magazine, but I don't think this story is enough to turn this product line into something that's had significant effects on culture, history, or technology. Not the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 24 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 Fashion-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a commercial advertisement. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in secondary sources, no credible claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Signs

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

Unnotable faith healing new age book. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and reads like an commerical. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LK (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lk Pass A Method talk 12:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete: Soul Signs: An Elemental Guide to Your Spiritual Destiny (Redirect) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaeyyn89 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Booth

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

Delete. Claim of notability but does not seem to quite meet WP:PROF. Note that all the refs are from the subject himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The text of the article makes it sound like he should be eligible under WP:PROF criteria #1, but the sources all go to the research he is claimed to be notable for, not any independent sources confirming that he is in fact notable. If the claims already in the article could be properly sourced, I would withdraw my weak delete. Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~His work is briefly commented on~~ He has a brief comment in this New Scientist article. I searched ProQuest as well (I'm not sure whether I should directly link to the page or not) and found a short article by Helen Barklam in the Sunday Mercury that directly profiled his research. I also found an article by John Revill in the Birmingham Post about his work. The man seems to be notable to me. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is still insufficient to meet WP:PROF IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, I believe that it at least meets the WP:GNG criteria per the inclusion or Presumed criteria. WP:PROF does not necessarily supersede the general notability requirements.Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His work isn't commented on in that New Scientist article, he's commenting on the work of others. But I've just found an interesting Times Higher Education article concerning him. Qwfp (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the mistake, no deception was intended. Good find with the Times Higher Education article Qwfp, the content jives quite well with the coverage I have found elsewhere. (I'm not sure if this will be useful or not, but I'll provide the links anyway for anyone who can access them. the Barklam article and the Revill article]) Both of them highlight a particular study Booth was undertaking. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h index is 25, which passes WP:Prof#C1 even for a fairly well cited field. pretty good considering he had so much difficulty getting funding. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe and the evidence cited above. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lead including a line like this is always a bad sign: "The notability of his contribution to food intake-related research can be measured by 146 entries on PubMed alone." No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Somebody please improve this article if it is kept. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not impressed by the number of citations in Google Scholar. And I'm very unimpressed by the gibberish/jargon tone of the article. "He joined forces with the human rights activist Phil Booth to advocate culturally and biologically realistic education in personal tailoring of changes in specific patterns of behaviour in order to slow the increase in prevalence of obesity." Please! --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar citations appear to be enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, while the article concerning him in the Times Higher Education is an independent, reliable source to back up the non-independent but reasonably realiable biographical details in his personal webpage and ensure an article about him can be verifiable. Also appears to meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 as his 1994 monograph Psychology of Nutrition was the subject of independent reviews in several reputable academic journals: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nutrition Bulletin, Patient Education and Counselling. The last of these says "The author ... is an expert on the regulation of appetite and satiety and writes with great authority on this subject." I agree with Carrite's and MelanieN's criticisms of some of the content of the current article though, so suggest removing the sentence about PubMed and tagging with {{cleanup-jargon}}. Qwfp (talk) 08:02, 31 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 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film). Big Dom 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score)

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

The article is orphaned, has no references, and does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The article only contains its track listing and infobox. And the fact that the movie itself is notable does not enhance the notability of this article, because it has no reviews and chart info when I did a little research about it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS LK (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should be merged in the existing article Pass A Method talk 12:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment: Could the nominator please explain why s/he took this article to AfD 7 days after placing a prod tag on it? The prod was not contested (as of right now the tag is still on the article) and I see no indication that deletion is controversial, so this article should be deleted immediately as an expired prod. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)". Not notable enough for a stand alone article. IJA (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above; this makes the most sense, both for this article and the related Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtrack). Note also that the PROD no longer applies, since we have non-delete !votes here; if this AFD was unanimously in the Delete column, I'd go ahead and delete the article outright as an expired prod. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mr & Mrs. Smith. ℥^nding·start 14:51, 27 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 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film). Big Dom 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtrack)

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

I'm adding here the same concern I had towards Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score). The article is somewhat orphaned, has no references, and does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The article only contains its track listing and infobox. And the fact that the movie itself is notable does not enhance the notability of this article, because it has no reviews and chart info when I did a little research about it.Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)". Not notable enough for a stand alone article. IJA (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) as suggested by the previous voters.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above; this makes the most sense, both for this article and the related Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score). Note also that the PROD no longer applies, since we have non-delete !votes here; if this AFD was unanimously in the Delete column, I'd go ahead and delete the article outright as an expired prod. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mr & Mrs. Smith. ℥^nding·start 14:51, 27 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 episodes of Pinky Dinky Doo and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky's Happy Doo Year

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

Non-notable television episode. The article is entirely unreferenced, and fails to explain why the episode is notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. --Crazy runner (talk) 09:08, 23 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir to List of episodes of Pinky Dinky Doo. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. LK (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have an idea - Delete. No notability to be found. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the "Random article" button still brings up a lot of old articles from Wikipedia's TV Guide days, there are very few individual episodes of a TV show that are notable enough for their own page. The series is notable, and an article about a particular season's worth of episodes of a show is still considered OK. Mandsford 14:54, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Trough prairie butterfly

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

Article name does not refer to any species of butterfly. Four butterfly species are mentioned in the article. I have removed three of them to their own articles, the fourth already has an existing article. The section of the article relating to conservation duplicates the many existing articles on conservation. With the three butterfly species removed to their own articles, this article no longer serves any purpose and was rather dubious as to the subject in any event. The butterflies should have been listed in separate articles to begin with. Delete. Safiel (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved the article to the title Puget Trough prairie butterflies, since it deals (or dealt) with the status of several unrelated species of prairy butterflies in the Puget Trough. --Lambiam 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you moved information from this article to form three other ones, we can't simply delete this, as we must preserve the article history. It should instead be turned into a redirect, but I have no idea of pointing to what target. Perhaps it should also be renamed to reflect the actual contents rather than the non-existant species. LadyofShalott 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are the three articles I created:

I don't think redirection can be used simply because the Article Title Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a plausible redirect to anything. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After giving it some further thought, I am considering moving this article to Butterfly and moth conservation and deleting the information specific to the four butterflies and then marking the original article name for speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. Reconsidering what I said earlier about duplicating conservation articles, I see there is not much specific to butterfly and moth conservation, so will strike my original comment. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Butterfly and moth conservation. Then, Speedy Delete Puget Trough prairie butterfly as an implausible redirect. Safiel (talk) 18:13, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puget Trough prairie butterfly is not a common name therefore no redir is needed. The rest of the article is not easily salvaged and is not suitable for a Butterfly and moth conservation article. If the latter article were to be written it will need more than what is in the article up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Second google hit on the term is this AfD. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I am waffling here. After yet more reconsideration and talking to some of the butterfly folks, I will go back to my original stance of delete. It has been pointed out that the material in the article is neither sufficient quantity or quality to created the proposed new article, with which I have to agree. Final answer. I hope. Safiel (talk) 20:47, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takatsukasa Naotake

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

Claim to fame is being a Nippon Electric Corporation (NEC) engineer Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. The article claims that the subject was an entrepreneur, but gives no indication of any entrepreneurial activities. Joining a large, long-established, corporation is pretty well the opposite of entrepreneurship. I can't make much sense of the Japanese article using machine translation, but maybe that sheds more light on what notability is being claimed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability claim is barely existent, no where near passing WP:BLP standards. Article is years old, and still hasn't ever had a serious claim, referenced or not. Monty₈₄₅ 04:07, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Sylver

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

I have severe doubts that a proper balance can ever be struck here between positive and negative information, so it's probably simpler to just delete it outright -- especially since Sylver seems to show up regularly under different accounts to try to add uncited peacock material and remove unfavorable material. I'm also not sure that the sourcing we have establishes true notability, as opposed to temporary notoriety. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability seems pretty well-established, if not necessarily as a hypnotist, then as a fairly prominent huckster. The fact that the subject of the article keeps showing up to try to scrub evidence of his misdoings seems to me an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it, which would be letting him win. There doesn't seem to be any controversy other than Marshall Sylver versus The Rest Of The World here. -- Theodolite ➹ 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For many of the reasons Theodolite stated. Though a low-level fraudster, Sylver is notable enough. Also, as Sylver has flooded the web with propaganda in an attempt to make sure his Wikipedia page isn't returned too high on a Google search, the article page might actually be a public service. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — LongLiveReagan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he passes notability, even if he is a bit weak there. The fact that there can be balance concerns further supports notability, and should not be used as a criteria to support deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appweb

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

Unreferenced article about back-office software, yet another web server. Contested proposed deletion. Google News results yield mostly routine press releases about versions and updates; the only independent coverage is an interview with the proprietor[5] from a Linux products spamblog.[6] No showing that this has the kind of significant effect on technology, history, and culture that makes for long term historical notability. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination. As a side note, I was the editor who chose to challenge the PROD. I chose to do so as a result of a (very) hotly contested AfD discussion currently taking place regarding a similar server article, in the interest of being fair to the author of that article and not wanting to open a bigger "can of worms" than has already been created through the course of that discussion. Strikerforce (talk) 19:54, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-independent reliable sources listed. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 24 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 userfy to User:Djc wi/Write This Down (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write This Down (band)

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

Delete. Subject does not meet notability guidelines presented at WP:BAND. Released one studio album on a notable indie label. Did not chart. Much discussion on the talk page regarding the possibility that the band's music has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Meeting this criteria would indicate that the subject meets #11 of the WP:BAND guidelines. However, rotation is limited to RadioU and ChristianRock.Net, neither of which are considered national major radio networks. In addition to the failure to meet WP:BAND, the article has not established notability through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~The band has two EPs.The second EP was listed as an album by their label. One review spends more time lamenting this choice from the label than they do reviewing the album.~~ The label is an imprint of EMI Christian music, so not indie per se. The band clearly does not meet WP:BAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now, I ain't about to be spilling my age for nothing. That said, well over a hundred years ago, I used to book indie bands through T&N for various conferences. They were the go-to indies when they first started out. EMI owns 50 percent of the label. To this day, T&N continue to define themselves as an indie label. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, Write This Down (EP) and Write This Down (album) are two separate projects. The EP was released independently and the album was released by Tooth & Nail Records. ChristianRock.Net may not be a network, but RadioU is. They broadcast from two parent stations in Ohio and California. It is this fact that distinguishes RadioU from local radio stations since local stations only broadcast from one parent station. Write This Down (band) meets Criterion 11. --Djc wi (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. Respectfully, neither RadioU or ChristianRock.Net qualify. Cind.amuse 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I've explained how RadioU is a network. Please explain how RadioU isn't a network. --Djc wi (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Two stations isn't a network. It's two stations, one of which is KRQZ, which has no entity of its own, so it's essentially a repeater of the first station. See http://www.radio-locator.com/info/KRQZ-FM Where is KRQZ's home page? Who are KRQZ's on-air personalities? Who is the station manager at KRQZ?
      In a real network each station plays local content, has options on some national content, and has requirements for other national content. I'm thinking of NBC Red Network or CBC Radio.
      And according to radio network "The Broadcast type of radio network is a network system which distributes programming to multiple stations simultaneously". This is only one other licensed station. The others are repeaters. In fact KRQZ is just a glorified repeater.
      RadioU is a great radio station, WUFM, and I have listened to it since 1997, but it's not a network since it's one station in Columbus with multiple low-power repeaters around the country.
      Now, being owned by the same company doesn't make it a network either because KWPZ and KCMS are owned by the same company and they don't share any resources. They're two separate stations.
      So I can't see how RadioU is a traditional network and as such should not qualify toward the criteria listed in WP:BAND. If that's the case, there are a lot of indie bands who need to be added because they make the daily RadioU Most Wanted list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In response to Djc wi above. Network? Not a network? I don't know and haven't made a statement either way. However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the two radio broadcast entities are networks. That said, the topical notability criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. This is where the rotation airplay falls short. In spite of all this, we still have a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not negate the requirement for significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already commented above on the two "projects" as you called them. The first is an EP and doesn't qualify toward the criteria as listed in WP:BAND. The second "project" does. I have corrected my comment above to reflect that fact. One album and one EP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, and thank you for your correction. And just to clarify, I never mentioned being owned by the same company as a criterion for being considered a network or not. It is simply because RadioU is being broadcasted by more than one parent station in different coverage areas across the United States. --Djc wi (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article also meets Criterion 12. Has been subject of hour-long broadcast over national TV network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the link to the proof of Criterion 12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6cVJAA1FQw TVU's Most Wanted is an hour-long broadcast on TVU, aired on KTV, a national network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I checked out the link, but rather than appearing for an hour-long interview or broadcast of which they were the subject, the interview is just under ten minutes long. Are the other 50 minutes somewhere else? Sorry, I couldn't find the content that would fulfill the topic notability criteria. Cind.amuse 08:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The video is of an hour broadcast. TVU's Most Wanted plays music videos and internal promotions in the other 50 minutes. The video just cut out everything else. Since other music videos and promotions take up the other part of the show, that would make Write This Down the subject of the show. For proof of "the other 50 minutes," TVU's most wanted airs on Friday at 4, 7, and 10 PM ET & PT. You can see that the subject of the show receives about 10 minutes of airtime and the other 50 minutes is videos and promotions. --Djc wi (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Ten minutes of coverage does not equate to being the subject of an hour-long broadcast. Cind.amuse 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - KTV isn't a national TV network! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. KTV is a national network. If it's not, then what is it? --Djc wi (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment What are the TV stations in the TV network? It's a music channel that broadcasts through the Internet, Sky Angel and KTV where it has a four-hour timeslot during the time when other network affiliated stations are running infomercials. It's owned by the same parent company as RadioU. It's a stretch to call it a network, and certainly not in the spirit of WP:BAND. Since you won't let this issue drop, would you mind giving full discloser of your relationship to the band and its record label? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 23 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue here is the two words Major and National. Neither the tv channel, or the radio stations meet this criteria. No denying they are networks, but the other two parts are the qualifiers. (Trust me, my own band got lots of student, local and pirate radio plays, but you will notice that Digital Fish is conspicuously a red link. What can I say, the media is populated by philistines! ;-)). While I do hope that this band achieves notability, and from what is being posted, it is clear they are heading in the correct direction, as yet, they do not justify a page. I would suggest that at present, this would be best suited to a dedicated website, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web hosting service. Bennydigital (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, also agree with Bennydigital above. LK (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not meet WP:BAND as per Bennydigital. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - It's obvious that this discussion has gone on too long, but the band is still active and will most likely be releasing a second album on Tooth & Nail Records in the future. Until then, the page should be maintained as a user page until the second album is released. --Djc wi (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one can prevent you from adding the contents of the page to your user page or as a sub page of it, but it's not advised nor is it necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious, why isn't it advised or necessary? --Djc wi (talk) 21:59, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tails to Tell Animal Rescue Shelter Ltd.

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [7]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athoc

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY or the general notability guideline. The only non-press release source in the references now is a 2-paragraph mention from bizjournals.com, hardly enough to meet the requirement of multiple independent sources. I was unable to find any more suitable sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator has requested this article's deletion here. The page does not appear to be a valid G7 since it has multiple contributors. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking through the history, I don't see where many of the other editors added substance to the page; the text is almost all one author's, the remaining edits were all formatting or adding tags and templates. I'd suggest it is a valid G7. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a G7 if everyone else agrees that it applies. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to not allow it. I think it's important that ~~VQuakr~~ Andrew Young US (correction--wrong user, sorry) and AdHoc in general start to try to understand that they cannot control this page in any way. Since VQuakr indicates an intention to likely make a new article in the future, it's good for them to see right now that the decision to keep or delete the page, and what information to include on it, is not based on the company's desires, but based upon Wikipedia policies. However, some might argue that this is being unnecessarily bureaucratic, which of course Wikipedia is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another tech business, a a provider of network-centric mass notification and emergency communication systems. Referenced to press releases and PR sites. No showing that this business has had significant effects on technology, history, or culture of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The intention of having the page in place was to provide those seeking to understand the emergency notification industry with a snapshot of one entity that has helped to inspire, if not wholly introduce concepts that have spawned new forms of innovation and advancement for the technology in question. Not to sound condescending, but the discussion above is starting to sound like a schoolhouse debate on the punishment of an unruly or incorrigible student. I assure you gentlemen, that is not required here. The issue here is not one of whether Wikipedia was being leveraged for purposes other than creating a credible source of knowledge...but rather, it is one of inexperience with creating the most effective article possible. I concede this - hat in hand. However at this point, my concern is that no matter what edits or sources are cited in support of the article, its fate is a foregone conclusion regardless of this discussion. If I am assured that these edits will be reviewed in an unbiased and fully objective fashion, I will spend the time revising and validating the merit of this article. I believe that this company, having been around since 1999 and risen to become the de-facto solutions provider to millions of military personnel, college students and emergency managers worldwide -- is notable. Their solutions have evolved in parallel with the technology (3G, 4G, GSM, CDMA, etc) and infrastructure that enables them. Hundreds of other providers have appeared since 9/11, Virginia Tech and countless other tragedies. This company is one of the very few that was in existence before these unfortunate events, and has demonstrated a consistent commitment to new thoughts, ideas and solutions that are beneficial to all. These systems save lives. If they fail, they do not. It is that important. While there are some notable instances of failure relating to these types systems when used in live situations, none of these are attributable to this company. Given the aforementioned length of their existence, the rigid environments and stringent requirements within which their systems are deployed (primarily military) and documented chronology of innovation -- I strongly contend that this article is valuable. It is my own shortcoming not to have articulated this or created this article correctly with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Those seeking knowledge and insight into this industry should not suffer as a result. Andrew Young US (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should indeed have information about the emergency notification industry; but the starting place for such an article would be an article about emergency notification or emergency notification service. To single out one firm to provide a "snapshot" of the industry is putting the cart before the horse. We'd frankly be glad to have someone in the firm write us a concrete description of the methods and tools used by such firms. But until such time as Athoc itself is recognized by others as having invented or launched a product or service that has some kind of significance in the development of the field, it probably is not a promising subject for a standalone article. Rating services and trade awards in themselves don't tell us much, either. They really don't tell us what was achieved or why.

(Puts on a schoolmaster's mortarboard) I'd also recommend that you have a look at our basic neutrality policy, and look at the manual of style on words to watch and the plain English essay, which contains specific tips on writing on business subjects. Even here, you're calling the products solutions and the businesses solution providers. You're using leverage as a verb. Please don't take this personally, but that kind of writing breaks our neutrality policy and is not appropriate in main-space article texts. It requires heavy editing, or if it's too vague to be informative, it's just going to get removed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the feedback, and it is all taken with a sense of objectivity. That said, I would argue that this article on a "specific provider" is not "putting the cart before the horse" as you say. Have you actually sat and read this article? Please see both the "See also" and "Supporting Technology" sections. Upon completion, I think you will see that your comments create an oxymoron -- kind of like "freezer-burn". You are calling this a "stand-alone" article while the article itself is written to reference related aspects of the industry as well as the supporting infrastructure.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to provide the links and insight. Andrew Young US (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, just noticed I never actually put a !vote here. This is a company that looks like it's really right on the border--if they have the contracts that their press releases and website claims, they seem to have a significant impact on the field, but the problem is that we need reliable sources to keep the article. It may well be that in 6 months or a year this company will rise to the notability needed for an article. I would be happy to help them work on the article in Andrew Young US's userspace, if xe finds more sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your offer Qwyrxian, and I will be happy to accept your assistance if indeed the article is deleted. In the interim, I have applied a significant overhaul to said article, and have added some additional references. Over the course of the next day, I plan to increase these references in a clear and coherent sequence. I am hopeful that deletion will not occur prior to that time. If so, then the userspace option will become the focus. Andrew Young US (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not specifically reference advertising in my deletion nomination, because my main concern was the company's notability. However, I think it is noteworthy that the tone of this article has actually become more spammy since this deletion discussion began. It is always difficult to write neutrally about topics with which we are personally involved, and I am increasingly concerned that the creator of this particular article may simply be too close to the subject to effectively write about it. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a valid G7. Onthegogo (talk) 05:19, 24 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 Ponca City Public Schools. Move the current article to East Middle School (Oklahoma) for the time being and turn East Middle School into a disambiguation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Middle School

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

Article is about a non-notable Ponca City, Oklahoma middle school. Please note that this article's school of topic is not the same school as in the previous nomination, so it does not qualify for speedy deletion. A relevant Google search [8] found no non-trivial and reliable third party references. Article also appears to be created from OR per a message on the talk page of the article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd redirect to the district, but this is probably a really common name for middle schools. Just look at East High School – and it's probably similar. The article should be deleted, but what to do at that site is a really complicated matter. Raymie (t • c) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on school district as this is a non-notable primary school. No redirect, per Raymie above. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no article on the school district of Ponca City...Ponca City Public Schools is linked in the Ponca City article, but it's a redlink. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps renaming this Ponca City Public Schools would be in order? Carrite (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that...if the article needs (warrants?) creating, that would be fine, but it appears the only two schools in the district that have articles are this one and the high school. To me, a simple education section like can be found in Salina, Kansas would suffice (although perhaps with a bit more prose). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, THEIR WEBSITE indicates the district has 7 elementary schools and 2 middle schools. That's plenty for an article, even if it's a bunch of redlinks for the time being... Conversion of this page to a page for the district (with a little introductory section) strikes me as a valid long-term option. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I think I have to agree that Arxiloxos' solution below is probably the one I'm more inclined to go for at this time. At the same time, the article about the district could be created and when it's up to scratch the article could be rerouted to that article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OUTCOMES#Education may offer some additional information when assessing this discussion for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma) and then redirect it to Ponca City, Oklahoma (which already has a nice list of the city's public schools). Then re-start East Middle School as a DAB page: there seem a large number of likely targets, some of which currently have their own articles (though whether they should have articles is another question).[9]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 10 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) 00:04, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes, school pages are created as part of a week-long lesson that includes an introduction to Wikipedia, and this may be the case here [10]. In those situations, they stay up during the week and the hall monitors on the new pages patrol hold off on nominating until later. It's later. If I read this correctly, East Middle is limited to the 8th grade students in Ponca City, who come there after they finish 7th grade at West. I guess this could be merged to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education, but even better would be for someone to turn this into an article about Ponca City Schools and write about the schools in general-- looks like there's a high school, an east and west public middle school, three private K-8 schools and eight elementary schools. Mandsford 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education per usual practice. As discussed, Ponca City Public Schools would be a better target, if created. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a basic stub at Ponca City Public Schools that is pretty much written like my basic AZ school district articles. Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy yuan

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

The article fails to address the WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. Searching GNews I find some mentions in the local press of being a political candidate, as would be expected for any election process, by itself this is not sufficient to demonstrate the significant impact required. Being a CEO is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability either based on the WP:BIO guidance. Fæ (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
Wendy Yuan is a noted local politician who has been featured in numerous news reports and interviews in both local and national media. On top of that, she is also a significant community figure in Vancouver, and has received awards and sat on boards of important associations. (sorry about the format of the response) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkl524 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to check the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, this is has been evolved after much discussion and represents a firm consensus. If Yuan's community work or corporate work is particularly notable and supported by reliable sources (such as national papers or respected books) then you may have a case against the general guidelines but she would have to be notable in her own right (as opposed to the notability of her company) and the impact must be demonstrably significant. AfDs run for at least 7 days, so you might find it useful to discuss detailed options for improvement on the article talk page (rather than here) in the meantime. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:30, 10 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) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note (with my admin hat on) the AFD was improperly transcluded on the talk page. I've fixed it as of today, but it may be wise to let this AFD run long. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That puzzled me until I saw this change where an anon IP capitalized the name in the template, probably without realizing this would stop the notice working properly. Thanks for fixing it back. Fæ (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm sure it was good-faith. I find the "broken" ones on a bot, but it doesn't run very frequently. tedder (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with my user hat on) Per Fæ. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. As an elected politician and MP she meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's only a MP candidate, no? Or am I misunderstanding "candidate" and "riding" because of my south-of-Canadia education? tedder (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - overlooked the word "candidate. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a candidate, and not a notable person otherwise. Rawr (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, without prejudice to re-creation if and when she wins a seat in the House. PK T(alk) 14:05, 30 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forumosa

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

Unreferenced article about a Taiwanese PHP Bulletin Board and classified ads website. No evidence to subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (web), and I could find no sources out of which to construct a rewrite. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can bring this article up to standard given a few days - please hold off deletion while I tackle this. Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:33, 14 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) 00:02, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High number of ghits but being unreferenced and promotional it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 24 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Del Debbio

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

another editor had prodded this and the prod was removed. tagged not notable since october 2009. no verifyable sourcing. just bringing to afd to determine if this person is in fact notable. Original article creator appears to have been a SPA account with no activity other then related to this person. and not activity at all since. also one of the references appears to be what his username was based off of. So there is a definate question of conflict of interest.Tracer9999 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article as it stands does not demonstrate notability but the Portuguese article, while under-referenced (at least by English Wikipedia standards), looks as if it might (or, if my almost non-existent knowledge of Portuguese isn't misleading me, at least suggests the existence of RS in Portuguese). Any Portuguese-speakers around to confirm or deny this? PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 16 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) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be notable based on sources from Brazil, although I do not speak the language. BOZ (talk) 18:04, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Brothers

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

Subjects fail notability guidelines as all major searches return things from their own sites. Also, article is written like a press release and advertisement Canyouhearmenow 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 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) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much results on Google and no results in Amazon and Allmusic. The article fails WP:BOLDFACE, WP:NPOV and WP:YOU ("For a full list of awards, go to The Fox Brothers official site www.FoxBrothers.com"). In my opinion: Delete!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:58, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a sort of BLP and unreffed it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 24 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 Dreamcatcher (novel). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripley

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

Majority plot summary article that completely fails WP:N; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cites only primary sources: the book & film. Nothing here that isn't/couldn't be succinctly covered in those aritcles. I redirected it some time back, but the creator reverted requesting "due process, take it to WP:AFD please", so here it is. The creator himself described it to me as "an ancient piece of trifle that I wrote many eons ago that I think could go. It should be done the formal way though, as several people have contributed besides myself." So, here it is. IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I believe the current article is certainly less than stellar, given the number of in-universe characters that have pages on wikipedia, there is potential for this article to explain what is an extraordinarily complicated character central to a Stephen King novel. However, that being said, I have no attachment to the present article. It can always be remade, or the article on the novel expanded, when some deeper discussion can come of it and be referenced to secondary sources. I'll leave it to the community to decide what to do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are other in-universe character articles out there doesn't excuse this one. The only way to explain "what an extraordinarily complicated character" it is would be to cite secondary sources remarking on that extraordinarity/complexity, and even then I don't see why that couldn't simply be done in the novel/film articles themselves, since the creature has no notability outside of the singular story in which it appears. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If and when. The complexity is my opinion, but the character can be described using the novel/film as primary sources. However, notability can only be established with secondary sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 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) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a WP:PLOT summary. No sources to WP:verify notability or provide anything significant outside of a summary of the book or film. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies exclusively on primary sources, and even then, one is the film adaptation of the book. It does not have notability since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject about the fictional creature The Ripley. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources to presume that the topic meets the general notability guideline and, on top of that, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work so there are no valid reasons to keep the it around. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 24 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGQuest

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

appears to be a self published board game. article was created by a spa account. the creater of the games article was also created by a spa account which has the "publisher's" name in its username. no evidence of notability that I can find other then author owned sites. "official site" appears to belong to author of articles. Tracer9999 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also per WP:SOAPS. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is also a stub, and does not follow any Wikipedia's criteria/style to be an article, so unless it gets formated, and expanded, it is going to get deleted. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly lacks depth to be an article. There appears to have been a failure in the wikipedia bots as portuguese wiki has a page [11]. The problem is that some wikipedia don't bother in sorting out references for games.

comment I think this game has some features that probably have some novelty. There is mentioned in the portugese article that it was covered by a magazine. I suspect that there are quite a number of sources in portuguese to find. I think that there will be mentions in RS, i.e. presumed sources what I am not sure about is whether they will have the content to prove notability.Tetron76 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 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) 00:00, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 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 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtracks)

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

Orphan dab; navigation better served by hatnotes Fortdj33 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 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) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per. Also I proposed the deletion of the two following articles that are related to that disambiguation page (Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Score and Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr._&_Mrs._Smith_(2005_film)#Music - why is this even on afd? I'd do that and be done with it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 24 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry McLean

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

No independent sourcing to demonstrate notability, fair bit of primary coverage (the Belfast Telegraph appears to have republished her PR bio, etc.) but nothing independent. Essentially a question of whether a gig on Radio Ulster conveys notability that overrides WP:BASIC. If so, the article should be stubbed to only things that can be reliably read from primary sources (e.g., I'm sure she has a program on BBC Radio Ulster), if not... Reliable truly secondary sources of course welcome. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A long time national radio presenter. There is some third party coverage from the Belfast Telegraph which appears to have some depth. [12] It seems to be a feature where the let the subject write about themselves, which might appear "primary", however the publisher is secondary that decided to give her the platform.--Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has not only read, but understood, WP:PRIMARY.All too rare a thing. Grats. Anarchangel (talk) 16:25, 13 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) 00:00, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Fire

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

Not notable brand of fire extinguisher. The article has no assertion of notability, obvious conflict of interest, no references, and has been tagged as spam since December 2008. - Selket ^Talk 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was last changed in 2008 when it was asserted that it wasn't flagrant spam. No References Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sanat

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was nominated for deletion a few years ago and closed as no consensus. If this page were created today it would probably be deleted via CSD:A7 since there is not even a claim of notability in the article. It's been tagged for references since July of 2007. The first few pages of Google hits do not appear related to the magazine. Selket ^Talk 01:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not convinced its not notable, it makes a vague claim of notability already as having published prominent Turkish authors, which is a typical notability claim for a literary journal. I do see some Turkish language references to this publication. There are no doubt more prominent Turkish publications which don't have articles yet, but no convincing need to delete this one.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." (WP:NRVE) There must be evidence of notability to keep, not lack of evidence of non-notability to delete. --Selket ^Talk 02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. OK, I added two newspaper articles from 2005 to the article. The 2nd suggests rumors of a shutdown of the journal in 2005, which I am trying to verify. The periodical appears to be kept in many Turkish libraries based on searching the ISSN number, but the holdings seem to go through 2005 [13]. That would explain a lack of more recent sources, but its not hard to find them if you know where to look.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't operate a "delete unless" policy except with BLP-related articles. If in doubt, don't delete. --TS 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep inclined to agree with Milowent. Regrettably cannot find sources, or even the journal's own website, but systematic bias undoubtedly comes into play with Turkish Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for improvement by Turkish speakers. A search on this title at Turkish Wikipedia throws up a number of hits suggestive of publication in that now-defunct magazine. I suggest that the best move for the nominator now would be to contact active bilingual Turkish speakers on English Wikipedia, through Category:User tr or any Turkish WikiProjects, and ask if they are able to improve the article. If an honest attempt to do that fails I think we can delete with a clean conscience. --TS 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a coincidence. Strangely enough, a copy of Wikipedia that fell through a wormhole from the future says in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Sanat (249th nomination) that "were the 2nd nomination to have taken place today, the nominator would have been blocked for a short time, for misrepresenting the nature of the article" Anarchangel (talk) 11:13, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Emelianenko

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

This is essentially an unsourced BLP. One of the references is an article on his brother Fedor that mentions Ivan with the rest of Fedor's family, but certainly doesn't indicate notability (which is not inherited). The only mentions I can find of Ivan are in connection with Fedor or concern rumors that he's going to follow his brother into the MMA ring. Since he hasn't actually fought any MMA bouts, I don't see how he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Mildly notable IJA (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He only seems to be mentioned for two things in my search--usually as Fedor's youngest brother and for sambo. Notability is not inherited and, as best I can find, Ivan is the 4th highest level (of 8) in sambo. According to the FIAS (international sambo federation) website, he has never competed (much less won) at a major competition. The website lists results for juniors and above since 2005 and includes world championships, but also other major events. Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Janggeom (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous delete comments. I found nothing to show he's notable. If he wasn't Fedor's brother there would probably be no mentions of him. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:08, 25 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 and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu Police

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion, but it appears there was some confusion about what it is actually about. All it describes is a local branch of the national police force, the Carabineros de Chile. For comparison to the US, it's a bit like having an article about a single detachment of state police. It is categorically not a police force or police department in it's own right. ninety:one 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails general notability guidelines. Individual units of the carabineros are not notable. Perhaps large subdivisions are but there are no local carabineros entities in Chile. The carabineros stationed in this town are not limited to patrolling this town and ones stationed in a neighboring town patrol this town and so forth.Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 13 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the communal subdivision of Carabineros de Chile in a provincial capital, we wouldn't be running out of the mill, nor creating confusion by adding articles on every single one, and I'm sure there are other ones which could have better references than this one will ever reach. My 2c as the author of the article. Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 17 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) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pichilemu. That seems like a reasonable compromise. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly into the article do you suggest? I can't think of a good place for it, there. I'm happy either keeping this on its own article or creating a list with all of the Pichilemu-based organizations (properly sourced, of course). Diego Grez (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pichilemu#Government and politics? At least in the U.S., police forces are part of the government. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh well. In Chile they are, kind of. Diego Grez (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:LOCAL Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, due to: not a police force by its own right, small size and dubious notability.Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 27 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) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkane

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

Non-notable hip-hop "band". History also contains info on an equally non-notable metal band. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 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) 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- can't find any coverage in secondary sources. -- anndelion (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced for much too long. Article's 4 year history reveals not that much improvement over the history of the article. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 24 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.